Skip to main content

Full text of "Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V ..."

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 



^ # 









i 



*. 



h' 




( 



GITEllir TO 



imiw.vcAdud^^^ 



,^ii*t#i*t«<»*«»„„^ 



Lt'BRARV. 



f^ 



o Jl^I 



i»RBSENTKI> BY 






(y&j. cr£^^&4^<^ 




dbyGoogk 



dbyGoogk 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



d by Google^ 



I 

\ 

. i 



MEMOIR 

OV 

THE CONTROVERSY 

BBSFBOTINO THB 

I John v. 7. 

INCLTTBINa OBinCAL*NOnOES OV THB PBINGIPAL WBITSBS 
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION. 



** A ftiU and complete hiitoiy of flie eontrorenj, vhieh should enter, at laige. Into all iti 
partienlan, wofold be an inraloable acquisition to literature."— Chablxs Butlbb. 



By CRITICUS. 

A NEW EDITION, WITH* NOTES AND AN APPENDIX. 

By EZRA ABBOT. 



BOSTON: 
NICHOLS AND NOTES 

1869. 



dbyGoogk 



dbyGoogk 






EDITOBIAL NOTE. 



TffiEB "Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Three 
Heavenly Witnesses ** which is here repiinted consists of a 
^«eriea of articles which originally appeared in the Congrega- 
tional Magazine for 1829, under the signature of " Criticus," 
and were published at London in a separate volume in 1830. 
The author, the Eev. William Orme, was bom at Falkirk in 
Sootlandi in 1787, and became minister of a Congregational 
churdi at Ferth, in 1807. He afterwards removed to Lon- 
don, and became minister of a congregation at Camberwell, 
and Foreign Secretary to the London Missionary Society. 
Mr, Orme was the author of several esteemed works, as the 
« Memoirs of John Owen, IX D.," London, 1820 ; "BibKothe- 
oa Biblica, a Select List of Books on Sacred Literature, with 
Notices Biographical, Critical, and Bibliographical,'' Edin- 
burgh, 1824 ; and espedally the *< Life and limes of Kchard 
Baxter, with a Critical Examination of his Writings," pub- 
lished at London in 1830, the year of his death. Li his ac- 
count of the controversy respecting 1 John v. 7, being a. 
Trinitlkrian, he will not be suspected of undervaluing the 
arguments for its genuineness through theological prejudice ; 
and Home justly praises ^the candid spirit and dilige# 

, Digitized by VjOOQIC 



iy EDITORIAL NOTE. 

research which pervade every page of his able and well- 
written Memoir." 

The republication of the present work is due to Frederic 
Huidekoper, of MeadviUe, Pennsylvania, at whose instance 
I undertook its editorship. Though the controversy itself is 
a memorable one, and its history will always possess an in- 
terest both to the theological student and the student of hu- 
man nature, it may seem to have been hardly worth while to 
call attention to the matter at the present day. It may be 
said that the question is obsolete ; that the spuriousness of 
the disputed passage has long been conceded by all intelligent 
and fah:-minded scholars. This is true ; but a little investi- 
gation will show4hat great ignorance still exists on the sub- 
ject among the less informed in the Christian community. 
The passage is still quoted as a part of genuine Scripture in 
volumes published by our Sunday School Societies, Tract 
Societies, and other religious bodies ; many of the popular 
commentaries either give a Mse impression in regard to it, 
or pass over it in silence ; and it has been used as the text 
for not a few sermons on the Trinity, whidi have been pub- 
lished even in the present century. Many Trinitarians, who 
ftre aware that the passage has been disputed, have a vague 
notion that it was at an early period fraudulently left out of 
some manuscripts by the Arians, and that it is now rejected 
by Unitarians on account of their hostility to the doctrine 
involved; on the other hand, some Unitarians imagine it 
to have been a deliberate forgery, devised for the purpose 
of giving support to the doctrine of the Trinity. These 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



EDITOBIAL NOTE. V 

errors dp not tend to promote Christian charity. Those 
who still quote the passage through ignorance should be 
enlightened; tbose who know tiie &usts in the case, and 
conceal them, should be put to shame. The republication of 
this Memoir may perhaps contribute something to both these 
ends. It will also show that tiie interpolation did not x>rigi- 
nate in fraud, though ^ pious fraud'' has done something to 
give it currencjk 

In the present edition of this work the extracts made by 
Mr. Orme from various writers have been carefully verified, 
as far as possible, by comparison with the originals, and many 
mistakes have thus been corrected; to the more important 
quotations in foreign languages a translation has been sub- 
joined, for the benefit of the unlearned reader ; land a few 
notes have been added, together with an Appendix, continu- 
ing the history of the controversy, and exhibiting the judg- 
ment of the best scholars at the present day in regard to the 
subject The original text has been reprinted without omis- 
sion or change, except the correction of typographical errors : 
the editorial additions are enclosed in brackets. 

•E.A. 

Cahbbidob, Kass., December 20, 1866. 



dbyGoOgk 



dbyGoogk 



PREFACE. 



The sentence which has been placed on the title, from 
tin Eor<B BiU%c€B of the venerable Charles Butler, is by no 
means intended to apply to the following pages. The au- 
thor is too sensible of their imperfections to lay claim to 
the merit of presenting a full and complete history of the 
controversy of which they treat. He has neither possessed 
the leisure, nor the means, to enable him to accomplish so 
desirable a work. If, however, his efforts should induce some 
more fiivored individual ; such a person as Crito Cantabrigi- 
ensis, whose acuteness and learning, calmness of temper, and 
powers of argument, show that hd possesses every requisite 
qualificaUon for such an undertaking, he will feel himself 
amply rewarded, though the work of the pioneer should be 
forgotten in the splendid triumph of the successful generaL 

The greater part of this Memoir of the Controversy was 
originally drawn up by the author as a kind of recreation 
from more severe labots, during hours both ^^ few and far 
between," which he occasionally thus employed. What grat- 
ified himself, he imagined might afford some gratification to 
others. He, therefore, extended his notes, and printed them 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



VlU PBEFACE. 

during fhe preceding year, in the successive numbers of a 
monthly publication. He has understood they created some 
interest in the subject ; and that to a few their appearance 
in a separate form would be acceptable. 

In that form they are now presented to the public, with 
some corrections aild veiy considerable additions. Criticism 
he neither courts nor deprecates. He who has freely ex- 
pressed his ojnnion of others, may expect that others will 
use the same freedom with him. And if this is done with 
candor, and with due regard to the interests of truth, tho^ih 
it should differ from his own, he will not complain, or be 
offended. 

LoNDOK, fVfrvar^ 1880. 



dbyGoogk 



CONTENTS. 



PAOI 
Ihtbobvotioh • 1, 2 

^Erasmns 2-7 

CknnplutensianEditioiiof the New Testament • • • .2,3 

Jortin . 7 

. Ck>lin8Bii8, Stephens, Beza, the ElzeYira • • • • • 7, 8 

>^Ancient Versions • ^ 8, 9 

\/ Luther, Tyndale, &c , 8, 9 

Father Simon 9-13 

Bishop Bnmet • .13-16 

« Dr. Thomas Smith, Eettner 16, 17 

Howe, Hammond • • • • • • * • ; 17-19 

Mill 19, 20 

TheAbb^Boger . • • .20 

EmI jn and Martin • ' 20-23 

Calamy • . . 23, 24 

Bishop Smalbroke \ . .24-27 

Bentley . r . . 27-31 

Mace and Twells -. 31-34 

Casley . . , , . . , . , , ,34 

Bengel 34-36 

Sloss and the Bev. T. P. of C 1. • . . . 36-38 

Wetstein . , , . 38-41 

C^sar de Missj . 41, 42 

V Sir Isaac Newton ....... .42-44 



dbyGoOgk 



X CONTENTS. 

Benson 45-47 

Bowjer • 47 

V^bbon 47-49 

Travis • , • • ^49-55 

Forson 55-60 

SosipcUer (Theophilus Lindsey) • • • • •* . 60, 61 

Robert Stephens's MSS. . • • • • • .61-72 

Bisbop Marsh . . • • • • • • . 6a 

Travis's AnsTfer . . . • . ,• ,• .63-66 
Hafsb'sK^ly .. . • • • * • • .66*78 
Michaeli? . ,. ,. . ,• ,• • • • • 74-78 

Semler, Wagner* Knittel, Sjresoir 74, 75 

Pr. Adqjn Cl^ke ,. .. ,. ,. . . . .78-84 

Pr. Smith pn th^ MS$. use^ for (he Cpmplutensian Edition . 82, 83 
Christian Observer ^Dr. jTosep^ Jow^tt) ,. ,. . . 84-90 
Pr. Charles Butjer . ..,..,. . .90-96 
Bossnet . .. ,. . ,. . . ... . 93, 94 

Bishop Middletop , . . . . .. .. . .96-98 

Eclectic Review (Df. JohA P^Q Smith) . ,. . . 98-100 
Phar^z .... . . . . . . : 99 

Griesbach 100, 101 

Nolan . . . . . . . . . 101-111 

Oxlee .,.?,,,.... 111-117 

Hales ......... 117-121 

Bishop Marsh agaiQ ......•• 121-124 

Blade's PoZoBoromajco . 124-130 

Bishop Burgess . . . , , . . .130-136 
Quarterly Review . .. . • • . . 136-143 

Burgess again ' . . 143-147 

Oxlee's Strictures 147-149 

^ David (Dr. John Joqcs) . i ... 148, 150, 151 



dbyGoOgk 



eOKTENTli. ri 

Burgess again . . . . . . . . 151>153 

Qaarterl/ Beview again 199-156 

Crito Cantabrigtdms (^ishop Turton) . • • . 157-162 

Eev. 71*811018 Huys^e . . * l62 - 165 

Cfito Cantabrigiemis ill liejfij 165^167 

Oxlee again • . . . 167-169 

Bnrgesfi a^n . . . ' 169, 170 

Knitters " Nfew Criticisins " translated by Evalison . .176-172 
Oxlee's Siimmaty of Points settted by the Controversy i. 178 - 1 78 
Clemens AngUcanits (Bishop Tnrton) on Evanson's Transla- 
tion Of Knlttel -. 178-180 

Edeclid Beview oif the Same . . . . • 179, 180 

Home 180-182 



APPENDIX. 

BY THB mj>it6ik4 

Monthly Anthology (Backnunster) and the Panoplist • 183, 184 
Bey. Henry Ware, Jr. . . . C , • . . 184 
British Critic .......;. 185 

BicUi 185, 186 

Bishop Borgess again 186 < 

Cardinal Wiseman 186-191 

Cardinal Angelo Mai . , • • • • • . . 19L 
Hnyshe and Oxlee again . . *. • • . . .191 

Dr. William Wright 191, 192 

Bev. William W. Hunt . . . * 192 

Scholz 192, 193 

Bnigess again 193 

Bev. F. A. Farley 193 

Dr. Joseph Tumbnll and Dr. S. P. Tregelles . . • 194, 195 



dbyGoogk 



xii CONTENTS. 

Boston Reyiew . . . 195, 196 

Critical Editions of the Greek Testament in the Present 

Centniy . . . . . . . . . .197 

Translators and Commentators « 198 

Champions of the Doctrinie of the Trinity — Wardlaw, Stuart, 

John P^e Smith 199 

Critics — Lee, Home, Porter, Daiddson .... 199,200 

Tregelles 200,201 

Tischendoif 201 

Green . . .202 

Scrivener . . 202, 203 

Alford 203 

Concluding Snmmaiy of the Evidence .... 203-205 
Protest against the further Imposition of the Passage on llie 

Unlearned as a Part of Scripture .... 205, 206 
The Edinburgh Beview and' the New Englander (President 

Woolsey) quoted on this Subject .... 206, 207 



dbyGoogk 



MEMQIR 

OF THE 0(»mtOVI»SY lffia»ECTBia 

THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES, 
1 John v. 7. 



THE controversy whicti h^ been agitated ttom. the com- 
mencement of the Reformation, respecting the testi- 
mony of the heavenly witnesses, in the fifth chapter of the 
First Epistle of John, whether considered in a theological, 
a critical. Or a literary point of view, iS of the highest im- 
portance. It involves one of the fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity, embraces some of the nicest points in Jbiblical 
criticism, and has brought into the field men of the most dis- 
tinguished talents and leamiug. Happily the subject may 
now be examined dispassionately; as it has been admitted 
both by th6 opposets and supporters of the disputed passage, 
that, whichever Conclusion is* come to, the doctrine of the 
Trinity remains nnafiect^d. 

It is the object of this historical memoir to present a brief 
view of the progress of this interesting discussion. It is not 
the intention of the author to bring forward all that has been 
said on both dddli, for that would require volumes ; but to 
notice the principal points in the debate, the parties who 
have engaged in it, the subjects into which the <5ontroversy 
has diverged, and the state in which the matter now appears 
to stand. 

1 ^ 



dbyGoogk 



2 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

The learned reader does not require to be informed ; but 
for the sake of those who do, and to prevent mistakes, it is 
necessary to state, that the .whole controversy is, whether the 
words in Gteek and English, enclosed within brackets^ in 
the following passage, are a genuine part of the original text. 

^^ "Oti rp€i£ €i<np oi iiaprvpovvT€s \jiv r^ ovpap^, 6 TraTrjp, 6 Xoyor, 
Kill TO Syiov TTvevfJM* Kal olnrot oi rpctr €P ct<ri. Kat rptis et<riv oi 
fjLafiTvpovvTfs €V rg ^]|, TO irmz/io, Koi TO vda>p, Kal to alfxa * Koi 
Oi Tp€is tls Th €v eiaivJ' 

" For there are three that bear record [in heaven^ the 
Fat/ter, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are 
one. And there are three that hear witness in earth'], the 
spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in 
one.** 

The words in dispute were omitted by Erasmus in the 
first and second editions of the New Testament, published by 
him in 1516 and 1519. This occasioned a dispute with Lee, 
an Englishman, who was afterwards made Archbishop of 
York by Henry VIIL, and also with Stunica, one of the 
divines employed on the Complutensian Polyglot; in the 
course of which Erasmus promised, that if the passage were 
found in a single Greek manuscript, he would insert it in his 
next edition. An account of the controversy with Lee and 
Stunica will be found in Burigpi's Life of Erasmus, and also 
in Jortin's. S tunica's attack and the defence of Erasmus 
will be found in the ninth volume of the Critici Sacri. The 
dispute with these individuals, it should be observed, was not 
restricted to the passage in John. Both of them attacked 
the editorial labors and learning of Erasmus generally, 
which it was their great object to vilify. That learned per- 
son was not backward to reply in his own defence. 

The Complutensian edition of the New Testament was 
printed in 1514, though not published till 1522. In this 



dbyGoogk 



ERASMUS. 3 

edition the passage is inserted, whether from some Greek 
MS., or translated from the Latin into Greek, has been mat- 
ter of dispute. At the same time, Erasmus was informed of 
a MS. in England, which contained the passage. This MS. 
has at length been found in Trinity CJollege, Dublin, and is 
now commonly known by the name of the Codex Montforti- 
antis. Michaelis asserts that this MS. was written after the 
year 1500, and is therefore of no critical authority. Mill 
thinks it is very modem; Wetstein ascribes it to the six- 
teenth centuiy; Griesbach dates it in the fifteenth or six- 
teenth ; and Dr. Adam Clarke, who examined it very partic- 
ularly, thinks it cannot be older than the thirteenth century. 
In consequence of these things, Erasmus inserted in his next, 
and two following editions, published in 1522, 1527, and 
1535, the words under dispute. While, from regard to his 
promise, he inserted t^e passage, he took care to record his 
reasons' for doing so, and his opinion of the MS., in the fol 
lowing words : — "-Kb hoc igitur Godice Britannico reposuu 
mus, quod in nostris dicehcUur deesse: ne cut sit ansa ca- 
lumniandi, Tametsi suspicar codicem iUum ad nostros esse 
correetumP 

While this sentence shows that the suspicions of Erasmus 
respecting the authority of this passage were never removed, 
it may be interesting to the English reader to know more 
particularly how exceedingly careful he was in forming his 
text of the New Testament, and that, on this very passage, 
he bestowed no ordinary pains. .From Jortin's Life of that 
distinguished individual, I extract a passage, in which the 
views of Erasmus on the disputed- passage are clearly and 
fully stated. In his note on the verse under discussion, he 
observes : — 

1. " That in the Greek, only these words are found : for 
there are three that bear record, the spirit^ and the water, and 
the blood: and these three agree in one. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



4 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

2. *^ThaJt this passage is so cited by Gyiil iir the 14tii 
book of his Thesaurus^ and that an orthodox ^ther^ as he 
was, would in&lHUj have cited the whole passage against 
the Arians, if he had found it in any copies in his time. 

3. ^<That the same may be said of Augastin, wha^ailflo 
cites it thus against Maximinas the Arian, althougfa he omits 
nothing to establish the consubstantiality of the Father and the 
Son, and although he pretends that the spirit, the water, and 
the blood, signify the Father, the Son, and the Hdy Ghost. 

4. ^ That Beda cites ibo passage in the same manner as 
Augustin. 

5. '^ That the conUt)Terted words are not in a manuscript 
of the Minor Friers of Antwerp, whidi he had examined. 

6. " That indeed the authority of Jerom is urged on this 
occasion ; but that this father seemi^ to complain, in a pre&ce 
whidi is prefixed to the Catholic Epistles, not of the Greek 
manuscripts, but of those who translated the Greek Testa- 
ment into Latin ; and that at present the words, which, as he 
complains, were omitted, are not to be found in the Greek 
manuscripts, but only in some of the Latin ones. 

" * But,' says Erasmus, * whence could Jerom discover this 
error of the translators ? It must have been by the help of 
the Greek copies. But these Greek copies either were or 
were not conformable to our version. If they varied, as well 
as the Latin versions, by what indications can he show which 
is the best reading, and how the apostle wrote? espedally 
since the reading which he censures was publicly used in the 
Qiurch. If this were not the case,^I know not what can be 
made of the following words : Sed tu^ virgo OkrisHy Eusto- 
chium^ dum a me tmpensius Scripturm veritatem inqmris, 
meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corrodeu" 
dam expome, qui tm faUarium corrvptorenique $acrcarum 
pronuncicmt Scrtpturarum. For who would have called.him 



d by Google 



ERASMUS. 5 

a forger and a fslBi&er, unless he changed the common read- 
ing of the place? If Cyril amongst the Greeks did read 
■what we now re»d in our Greek manuscripts, if Augustin 
and Beda did read sOy of if they found both the one and the 
other readings I see not what reason Jerom could give to 
prove that his way of reading was the true one. Some will 
say, This text furnifiheth us^ with a strong, argument against 
the Arians. But first,' since it is certain tha^ the manner of 
reading this passage hath varied amongst the Greeks and 
Latins, we cannot object it to them, because they will harve 
the same right to claim that riding which favors tbem«. 
Bot let it be supposed that the passage is incontestable, ^ncc 
what is said of the testimony of the water, the blood, and the 
spirit,, that they ace one (unum sunt, or rather that thej 
amount to one, eh ri w cio-i), relates not to an unity of nai- 
ture, but to an uniformity of testimony, could the Ariaus^ 
think we> be so stupid as not to interpret in the same manner 
what is said c^ the Father, the Word, and the Spirit? espe- 
cially since the orthodox explsdn in the same way a passa^ 
in the Gospel of St. John ;. since Augustin rejects not this 
interpretation,, when he disputes with Maximinus the Arian ; 
and since the interlineary gloss explains it thus : Uhum sunt^ 
id esty. de eadem re testantur. This ia not the way to establish 
the faith, but to make it suspected, by trusting to such weak 
surmises. Perhaps it would be better to use our pious 
ende&vora to beeome one with Grod and with Christ, than 
to discuss, with an. over-curious zeal, ha9t the Son differefih 
from the Father,, and how the Holy Ghost from the <me and 
the other. In truth, I see not how we can prove what the 
Arians denied, except by satisfactory arguments^ In a word, 
this whole passage, being obscure, can be of small service for 
the confutatiea of heretics, <&e. 

^ ' But not to dissemble anything one single Greek man- 



dbyGoogk 



6 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

nscript hath been discoTered in England, wherein what is 
wanting in other manuscripts is found thus : "Ort rpclj tla-iv ol 
ftaprvpovvTts cv rf ovpav^, Ilar^p, A6yog, KaX UvtvfjbOj Koi o^oi <A 
rpeis ^v €l<nv, Kal rpw €l<riv fiaprvpovm-es w tJ -yj, nvtvfm^ 
vdtop, KoL alfjLa €ls* rrju fiaprvpiop rS>v av&pwntnv^ &e., yet, I 
know not by what accident, what is in our Greek copies is 
not repeated here, icac ol rpeis tls t6 «p clo-iF, and these three 
agree m one. From this English manuscript we have sup-- 
plied what is said to be deficient in our copies, that no one 
might take occasion to calumniate us ; although I suspect 
that this manuscript hath been corrected and accommodated 
to some of our [Latin] copies. I have consulted two Latin 
manuscripts of very great antiquity in the library of St Do- 
natian at Bruges. Neither of them have the testimony of 
the Father, the Word, and the Spirit ; and in one of them 
were not the words in earth : there was only There are three 
who hear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, In 
two manuscripts of Constance, after the testimony of the 
Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, were added these words ; 
as in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the 
Spirit, and three are one. There was neither testimonium 
dant, nor the pronoun hi. In a manuscript which I had from 
the public library of the University of Basel, there was not 
the testimony of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood ; Pau- 
lus Bombasius, at my request, copied out this passage from a 
very old manuscript in the Vatican Library, which had not 
the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit ; and 
with this manuscript agrees the edition of Aldus.' 

" Erasmus proceeds to show that there are Spanish editions, 
wherein variations are found, and that in reality nothing can 
be here meai^t besides an unity of consent. I shall add no 
more : this sufficeth to show how careful he was to settle the 

• In this MS. it is et. 



dbyGoOgk 



JORTIN. 7 

true reading of the text of ithe New Testament, without pay- 
ing any regard to theological prejudices, which make men 
seek in the Holy Scriptures only what seems proper in their 
opinion to establish the sentiments which they have adopted. 
If Erasmus lived in these days, he would see with pleasure 
that Jerom's pretended Preface to the Catholic Epistles, 
up(Hi whidi so much stress was once laid, is the work of an 
impostor, as Father Martianai, although no extraordinary 
critic, hath fully proved in his edition ef Jerom's version. 
He would see that on this particular occasion there was no 
reason to blame Jerom, though the judgment which he passed 
upon the fictitious Jerom be reasonable and just. At present 
this passage, and all that relates to it, hath been so fully dis- 
cussed, that none except stubborn and perverse people pre- 
tend to deny that the hecEvenly witnesses are an interpolation. 
But there is the more reason to admire the sagacity and the 
judiciousness of Erasmus, who discovered the false read- 
ing."* • 

While this quotation shows the opinion of Erasmus, and 
the grounds on which that opinion was formed, it also con- 
veys the opinion of his biographer, Dr. Jortin, on the merits 
of the passage. Jortin was a profound scholar, a critic of 
great acuteness, whose acquaintance with ecclesiastical his- 
tory was more extensive and accurate than that of most men 
of his time. On biblical criticism he was also w«ll qualified 
to pronounce an opinion, and that opinion, whatever it was, 
he was accustomed to express, as in the present instance, wirh 
great decision and explioitness. 

ColinsBus, the father-in-law of Robert Stephens, in his 
edition of 1534, printed at Paris, omitted the verse from 
want of MS. authority. It is also omitted in editions pub- 

• Jortin'8 Life of Erasmus, Vol. II. pp 230-288. 

Digitized-by VjOOQIC 



8 C02JTK0VEBSY RI6SPKCTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Hsked at Hageaau in 1521, and at Strasbvi^ in 1524. B. 
Stephens, in Im edition of 1550, inserted the p«i8sa.ge ; but 
marked the worda <v r^ ovpai^ aa wanting i^i. se^n MSS. 
Beza, suspecting noc mistake, aqd supposing that tla^se MSS. 
contKUned the reixuUnivg words, inserted tha wh^ passage 
in his ^ditions^ Tk» Elzevir editors, following these author- 
ities, admitted the. passage int^ their eddtionsi and tUus it 
finally hecaode a p^ort of the reoelyed tezt^ 

In all the ancient vero^ns it is wanting. In the Old Sj* 
riac, or Pesbito^ mwade in the second or third centurj \ in the 
PhiloxeBian Syriaci, made in^ the ^eginnmg <tf the sjxth. cen- 
tury ; in thet Coptic and Sahidio Versions, made between the 
fourth and sixth centuries;;'*^ in, the Ethiopi/c. Version, which 
boasts a yery high antiquity ; in the Arabic Itf S& and most 
of the printed editions; and though inserted in the printed 
editions of the Armenian, it does not exist in the bes^ MSS. 
of that translation. The same remark is applicable to the 
SkYonian, the oldest editions of whidi do not contain it It 
is to be £9und in the printed text of the Latin Vulgate ; bi^t 
some of the oldest, Latin MSS. want it, and in others it is 
interlinec^ or added ia the. margin. No sati^ctory proof 
has been afforded that it is quoted by any of the Greek 
fath<Mr8 ; and even the adduced evidence of the Iiatu;i writei^s 
is defective or unsatisfactory. 

From all the editions of the German translatioa. of the 
New Testam^t by Luther, whicb.were published by him- 
self, it was excluded ; a concUisiye ^Tooi that Uie Rs^former 

* [These two versions, otherwise called the Memphitio and the Thebaic, 
are now generally supposed by scholars to have been made in the latter 
part of the. tihird or th^ beginning of the fourth century. Mitoter and Woide 
are disposed to assign the Sahidio even to the second centu](^; it is proba- 
bly, at any rate, the earlier of the two. The -ZEthiopic version is usually 
ascribed to the fourth centpry. — Sn.^ 



dbyGoOgk 



wattled feith in its autlioritj. After his death,, k wa* iw 
serted in his translation by some of the editors, and rejected 
by others, till at last its insertion became general. The mod- 
em European- versions for the most part contain the passage. 
In the greater number of the editions o£ the English trans- 
lation, from Tindal to- the Bishops' Bible* in* 1568^ the pas- 
sage is printed' either in a difierent diarajcter from the text, 
er enclosed in brackets, to intimate that it wa« ibuiK* in the 
Latin Vulgate,, bat not in the Greek text. Calvin^ Leo» dte 
Juda, Castalio, all speak of it and treat it as doubtfiil. 

In Father Simon's Critical History of the New Testap- 
ment, whieh^ was translated very*incorrectly into English in 
1689, the genuineness of the passage is attacked" at some 
length.* Simon examined very diligently the King's Library 
at Pari&, and*likewise the Golbertinej containing many valu»- 
able Greek MSS. ; but none of them contained the disputed 
passage. He found it also wanting in some of the oldest 
MSS. of die Latin Vulgate which he examined. His opin- 
ion is decidedly unfavorable to its genuineness ; as even in 
regard to the Latin MSS^ which contain it, he expresses his 
belief, that it was^ originally written on the margin^ as a mar- 
ginal note, and aflerwsurds introduced into the text by some 
of the transcribers* 

The following extract contains the result of Simon's in- 
vestigation, and dso his opinion of the manner in* which the 
spurious words were introduced into the text, both of the 
Greek and Latin MSS. which contain it 

'< After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and 
that of Colbert, in which there 'are a great many good man- 
uscript volumes, I found no copy that had that passage in 
it, though* I read seven of them in the Royal Library, six 



• Part I. Chap. XVIII. 5 Part H. Chap. IX. 



dbyGoOgk 



10 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

wliereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. 
Some of the manuscripts have notes; but no scholiast or 
annotator makes mention of that passage; neither have I 
found it in five manuscript copies belonging to Colbert's Li- 
brary, which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet 
some of these manuscripts are only paper, and much later 
than the rest. There is also one in 16mo, well written, and 
I believe since the era of printing : yet the passage in ques- 
tion is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the 
ancient, copies. 

" I could produce yet other Greek manuscript copies which 
I have seen, whose various readings I observed; but that 
which, most deserves our notice is, that in the margin of some 
of the King's and Colbert's copies there are small notes set 
over against the said passage, which in all likelihood have 
slipped afterwards into th6 body of the text. Take an exam<^ 
pie from the King'acopy, marked 2247.; over against these 
words, *0r4 Tp€is tifrip ol fiapTvpovvT€g iu rj yfj, t6 wevyua Kok 
rh vdap Koi t6 aifia, there is this remark, rovrcori t6 nvtvfM rd 
Syiov, Koi 6 irarrjp, Koi avr^g tavrov. By which we may per- 
ceive, that the author of the said remark understood the 
FatheTy the Word, and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the 
three witnesses mentioned by St John, the Spirit, the Water, 
and the Bhod: and what was formerly written by way of 
note, passed afterwards into the text, as it often falls out 
In the same copy over against these other words, ml oi rp^U 
CIS rh €v €i<ri, this note is added, rovriari fiia B^Artfs tir $t6^, 
that is, one Deity, one God. That manuscript is about 500 
years old, and there are but very few places therein that have 
notes. There is the like remark in one of the manuscripts 
belonging to M. Colbert's Library, number 871. For beside 
these words that are set in the margin, cw $€of fda $t^rfs, 
one God, one Deity ; the scholiast has also added these, fwp- 



dbyGoogk 



SIMON. 11 

Tvpla Tov 0tov rov iraTp6s Koi rov 6yiov irvtvfiarosy the testimony 
of God ike Father^ and of the Holy Ghost, 

^'Tbis, in my opinion^ is the original of the passage in 
question." 

Speaking afterwards of the Latin Vulgate in the time of 
Jerome, and of Jerome's controverted preface, and endeavor- 
ing to show diat the passage did not exist in that version 
then, nor was introduced by Jerome, he says : — 

" And that which makes it further manifest, that St Je- 
rome was not the true author either of the preface or uddi- 
tloii, is, that that addition is placed in the margin of most of 
tibe ancient copies, in the body of which it is not extant It 
-was no less than surprising, that the pretended St Jerome 
should in his preface commend his new edition of the Ca- 
nonical Epistles, upon the account of the change he had 
made, especially in the First of St. John, whilst there was 
luHhing of such change or amendment to be seen therein. 
Upon which account the transcribers, or they to whom the 
copies did belong, thought fit to regulate the text according 
to the preface, by supplying, in the margin, the verse concern- 
ing ike witness of. the Father, the Son, and the Hdy Ghost ; 
which, before that time, was extant in some ecclesiastical au- 
thors. But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who 
placed that additicm in the margin of their copies, to observe 
a general and perfect uniformity of words, It so fell out, that 
the expresMons in the various copies did likewise vary. This 
diversity evidently proves that St Jerome could not be the 
author of the addition* in controversy, but that it was done by 
^ose who had a mind to adjust the text in St. John to the 
preface. I shall here give some examples illustrative of the 
manner how it was added to most of the old Latin copies of 
St Jerome's Bible. 

" In that copy of the Royal Librar}-, that is marked 3584., 



dbyGoogk 



12 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1. JOHN V. 7. 

ia the maigiQ. over against these words^ Tkes sumi qui festt- 
monium danty i. e. ther^ are three tphiioh bear vttness, tfiere 
gre these other wjor^b added, ^ Qt^loy Paten, Verbum, et S^ri- 
tus: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrcL, et hi treg 
unum sunt, i. e^ in heaven, iha Father^ .the Word, onA the 
tS^rit : and there, ore tires, yjdck hear mines/^ om> earthy and 
these three are one. The wJitbg; of the addition afipjeare to 
be no less ancient thaoi thaf^ of the text. The lil^e. Edition 
is to be aeen. in & copjir that isi in. Colhevt^s Libn^r]^ that is 
marked 153., where in the margin, over against those woiids, 
Tres. sunt qui testimonium dant^ these are add€4» M~(u^a, 
Pater,, Verhmij et Spiritus, et tres sunt qui testimonium dant 
in terra, sanguis, aqua, et core And to- make the U^xt and 
addition agree tJie. better, there are some g£ the nvords of the 
te2^ amended or put out There, is nulling, of tbis addition 
to be read in the three ancient; copiea pf the library belongs 
ing ta the^ Benedictines of the Abbojr of St Germans, only 
it is placed in the n^rgin d! one of these copies, and the ad- 
dition is as old therein as the test itsel£ 

^ It is truey that it is extant in. a copy written eight hun- 
dred years ago, in the time of I^tbarius IL But it is 
strangely disfigured in diat place ; in that copy^ the reading 
was formerly thus, Sunt tres qui te^imonium dant^ ^he word§ 
in terrd being interlined^) spiritus^ aqua, et^ sangms ; et tree 
unum sunt : et tres sunt qui de c^do testificantur, paier^ ver* 
hum, et spiritus, et Ires unum sunt. But some time a^rwands, 
the words ch ccelo testijbcantur, L e. hear unisiess of [or j^f«] 
heaven, were defaced^ to make room for these,, testimonium 
dicunt in caeb, i. e. bear vntn^ss. in heaven^ 

"All which Afferent alterationsiare evident prooffe that there 
was nothing of that addition m the fifet copies* whieh^ wei» 
published of St Jerome's Bible ; for which reason it \% not 
to be found in ^ certain version of the French Church,, which 



dby-Googk 



.BUBNET. 13 

18 8t ledat; sk ii^u»anji y,^sii!S old, and wliich was published by 
Fid^hep MabUlony. av Benedictine menk, and the first who in 
effwA seems^ to have inserted ti^at passage in his works, is 
Victor,. Bishep of Vit^ who lived a tiwd^ed jears aftcF St 

Si]»Q|n^tbaught % Gatholi<^. ^d eithec a. sceptic^ or a blind 
^^Qt^f.wHSf^ mmk oi^'eviineat talent mds scholarship. In 
aE thei d^paiitin^ai^ of biblical, literature he was, profoundly 
ij;ei?8e^ wMl^ k^ was ua less, ^stinguished for his patient and 
U^osipos wseard)^ than for his< learning, and, acuteness. 
ThiM^e m al^tha.sa^Q tim^ generally so much Jesuitism about 
bis mode ot i^oa^^aiag,, tbat it is frequently dif&cujt to ascer- 
taia hift i^ opinjons^or the. object, of his aim ; so that while 
often led^ tpn adiacure th^ schc^ar, we can farely respect the 
Bsai^ Sis wor^ia one wa^ tend ta establish, the authority 
of BoiDe» 4nd,ii» anotb^i? to sap the foundations of Em vela- 
tioiK Oa tbd ^bj^ct of the disputed passage, however, 
hsc widtes^ d««riiy aj^d. ft)rcibly,, and). I believe, simply as a 

Qur learned^ (^niryman^ Bishop Burnet, paid some atten- 
tion to ilas sjihji^ ^^4 in the course of bis travels on the 
CkKotiaent examned^ai numbes of MSS., both Greek and 
Lalliv^ wbieh b^ published the result. The Bishop, though 
a respectable- schol^ and tbeolpgiau, was not profound as a 
oritiQ..' He QQuld npt acc(>unt for several things in this con- 
troversy whidi.are;now easily explained. He seems to have 
be^ft', % beUevin' in tb^ authenticity of the passage himself, 
and was, therefor^^ very anxious, to find it in some MS. of 
i^u«4 5is travels s^^^ now, I believe, not vecy commonly 
tp be met with, and as the passage is cuxious in which he 
speaks of this. text, X will^ve it entire. 

^^l haye. taken some pains in my travels to examine all the 



dbyGoogk 



14 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

ancient manuecripts of the New Testament, concerning that 
doubted passage of St. John's Epistle, 7%ere cere three that 
hear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit ; 
and these three are one, Bullinger doubted madi of it, be- 
cause he found it not in an ' ancient Latin manuscript at 
Zurich, which seems to be about 800 years old: for it is 
written in that hand that began to \)e used in Chaiies the 
Great's time. I turned the manuscript, and found the pas- 
sage was not there : but this was certainly the error or omis- 
sion of the copier: for before the General Epistles in that 
manuscript, the preface of St. Jerome is to be found, in 
which he says, that he was the more exact in that transla- 
tion, that so he might discover the fraud of the Arians, who 
had struck out that passage concerning the Trinity. This 
preface is printed in Lyra's Bible; but how it came to be left 
out by Erasmus in his edition of that father's works, is that 
of which I can give no account: for as on the one hand, Eras- 
mus's sincerity ought not to be too rashly censured; so on the 
other hand, that preface being in all the manuscripts ancient 
or modei*n of those Bibles that have the other prefaces in 
them, that I ever yet saw, it is not easy to imagine what made 
Erasmus not to publish it ; and it is in the manuscript Bibles 
at Basil, where he printed his edition of St. Jerome's works. 
In the old manuscript Bible of Geneva, that seems to be 
above 700 years old, both the preface and the passage are 
extant, but with this difference from the common editions, 
that the common editions set the verse concerning the Fatiier, 
the Word, and the Spirit, before that of the Water, the Blood, 
and the Spirit ; which comes after it in this copy : and that 
I may in this place end all the readings I found of this 
passage in my travels, there is a manuscript in St Mark's 
library, in Venice, in three languages, Greek, Latin, and 
Arabic, that seems not above 400 years old, in which this 



dbyGoogk 



BURNET. 15 

passage is not in the Greek, but it is in the Latin set after 
the other three, with a sictU to join it to what goes before. 
And in a manuscript Latin Bible in the library of St. Lau- 
rence at Florence, both St. Jerome's preface and this passage 
are extant; but this passage comes after the other, and is 
pinned to it with a sictU, as is that of Venice ; yet sicut is 
not in the Geneva manuscript There are two Greek manu- 
scripts of the Epistles at Basil, that seem to be about 500 
years old, in neither of which this passage is to be found : 
they have also an ancient Latin Bible, which is about 800 
y^rs old, in which, though St. Jerome's prologue is inserted, 
yet this passage is wanting. At Strasburg, I saw four veiy 
ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Latin : three 
of these seemed to be about the time of Charles the Great, 
but the fourth seemed to be much ancienter, and may belong 
to the seventh century: in it neither the prologue nor the 
place is extant ; but it is added at the foot of the page with 
another hand. In two of the other, the prologue is extant, 
but the place is not; only in one of them it is added on 
the margin. Li the fourth, as the prologue is extant, so 
is the place likewise, but it comes after the verse of the 
other three, and is joined to it thus, Sicut tres sunt in coelo. 
'^ It seen^ strange to me, and it is almost incredible, that 
In the Vatican Library there are no ancient Latin , Bibles, 
where above all other places they ought to be looked for; 
but I saw none above 400 years old. There is, indeed, the 
famous Greek manuscript of great value, which th^t Chano- 
ine Shelstrat, that was library-keeper, asserted to be 1,400 
years old, and proved it by the great similitude of the char- 
acters with those that are upon St Hippolite*s statue, which 
is so evident, that if his statue was made about his time, the 
antiquity of this manuscript is not te be disputed; If the 
characters are not so fair, and have not all the marks of an- 



dbyGoogk 



16 CONTBOVEBSY BJ5SPBCTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

tiquitj that appear in the Kiog's manuscript at St. James's, 
jet this has beea much better pr«serye(i^ and is much more 
entire. The passage that has led ma into this digcession^. is 
not to be found in. the Vatican; manuscript, no more than it 
is in the King's manuscript." * 

Dr. Burnet seems not to have been aware of the reason 
whj Erasmus did not publish^ in^ his* edition of Jerome's 
works, the preface before the Genepal Epistias, or of die faet 
wbicl]^ has been clearly ascertained^ that Jerome nevier woote 
any such preface ; but that it was the* prodncttoii' o6 a futu]*e 
age. Nor is he correct in saying,, that all the ancient Ladn 
MSS. contain this preface. Father Simon> dearly proves 
the contrary Buriiet's acciHint of the nsadings in tlie Latin 
MSS. which he examined, and its omission in the Greek 
MSS., oorroborater the testimony of all others who have ex- 
amined the subject 

Our learned countryman,. Dr. Thomas* Smith, in his Latin 
" Miscellanea,"^ the first edition of which appeared in 1630, 
has a dissertation in support of the received reading of this 
text^ in^ opposition to the view^ of Simon ; and as Simon re*- 
marked on him, he defended himself in a second dissertation, 
inserted in the next editicm in 1690. Smith was a very con«> 
siderable scholar,, who had traveled nmc^, and was weU ac- 
quainted with Greek and Oriental MSS.; but as ^ that which 
is wanting cannot be numbered," he necessarily failed in his 
attempt to* maintain the argument wbich he espoused. 

Kettner, a Grerntan writer, replied to Father Simon in 
three publications, in which he produced most of the argu"- 
ments usually alleged on his side, but mixed with many ab«> 
surd and trifling observations. For instance, he reckons in 
the second century, twenty-seven ; in the third, twenty-nine ; 
♦ Dr. G. Burnet's Tracts, Vol. I. pp. 64-67, printed 1689. 



dbyGoOgk 



md m tb» £>«rt1i» fejTljr-lwa w^8$ta», nthnli vai^ Uader the 

John Howe appears to have h^ the. authenticity of the 
received reading, and refers with approbation to Hammond's 
note on the passage.! That note, though learned) will not 
satisfy any who are acquainted with the real merits and presr 
ent state of the controversy. Mr. Oxlee. gives the following 
very accurate account of H^unmond's argument ; ta which he 
ajunexes an adnurable answer. 

^'The grounds on which Dr* Hammoad has erected his 
defence, are« first of all. That the ordinc^ reading hath the 
authority of mauy ancient, and all but one, printed copies ; 
That the omission might easily have been made by an error 
of transcription, owing to tha JBbnujeoUleuton ; That many 
copies have iv x^yj^ on the earthy without the former verse ; 
which shows, that this error q£ omission yvw the first comr 
mitted ; That it. is not. imaginable, if the manuscripts which 
contain it not, be. correct, how the rea<&g of the ordinary 
copies could have got in, except by gross fraud and fongery ; 
That, if any fraud were used, it were much more probable 
that the Arians had thrust it oitt, than that it had been inter- 
polated by the. orthodox, whp could have done very well 
without it^ Tl:mt in St. Cyprian the words are distinctly found, 
as alsQ in TertuUiani That it is allowed of Stp Jerome^ that 
he asserted the truth of our readipg fronv tho Greek copies 
which he had; and defended it a^insl^ all,, publicly com- 
plaining and contesting it, that in those copies where it was 
wanted, it was omitted <V erased by the fraud of the heretics ; 
That St. Ambrose saith, that the heretics did erase^ that place. 

* Porson's Letters to Travis, Pref. p. iii. Ed. 1790. Kettner's works ap- 
peared between the years 1696 and 1718. 
t How«'8 Wockv VoL VII. pp. 8, 4. 



dbyGoOgk 



18 CONTROVEBSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

'^ Such are the arguments from which Dr. Hammond has 
constructed his learned defence; and of those eight argu- 
ments, six at least are wholly groundless, being bottomed in 
ignorance and mistake ; whilst the remaining two are justlj 
disputed. So far from the ordinary reading having the au- 
thority of man^ ancient copies, there is but one copy in all 
forthcoming, that contains it in any shape ; and not even so 
much as one that exhibits it in its present form. Then as to 
the printed copies, instead of one, there are certainly five 
ancient editions, the first and second of Erasmus, one printed 
at Hagenau in 1521, another at Strasburg in 1524, and that 
of Colinaeus, in 1534, which have it not ; and several more, 
including the Editio PrincepSj in which the final clause of 
the eighth verse is removed from its proper place to eke out 
the seventh. Instead of many, there is not one copy which 
contains the iv rg tS <>^ ^^ eighth verse, whilst destitute of 
the seventh. So far from not being imaginable, it is both 
very imaginable and very clear, how the present reading got 
into the text ; which was done fir^t, by inserting the margi- 
nal gloss on the eighth verse into the body of some of the 
Latin manuscripts ; and then by the Greek editors translating 
and re-translating the words frx>m the Latin Vulgate, and in- 
serting them into the printed Greek text Nor is there any 
fraud chargeable either on the Arians, or on the orthodox <^ 
the fourth and fifth centuries ; during whose controversy, and 
for several ages after, the passage of the heavenly witnesses 
was existing only in the womb of futurity. The real fraud 
was committed by the Greek editors, who, about three hun- 
dred years ago, dared to insert it in their respective editions, 
contrary to the authority of the Greek manuscripts. More- 
over, it is not. true, that the words are either distinctly found 
or alluded to in TertuUian; nor yet in St Cyprian, if the 
matter be but duly considered. Neither is it at this day 



dbyGoogk 



MILL. , 19 

allowed of St. Jerome, whatever it may have been in the time 
of Dr. Hammond, that he asserted the truth of our reading 
from hid Greek copies; and defended it against all opponents. 
This argument evidently rests on the false supposition, that 
the prologue to the Canonical Epistles was written by Je- 
rome ; whereas, ever since the Benedictine edition of his 
works, nearly every scholar and critic of eininence, including 
jour Lordship amongst the number, have been convinced, 
that it is the composition of some sophisticator of the sixth 
or seventh century ; and fabricated chiefly with the design to 
procure for the heavenly witnesses a place in the Latin Ver- 
maa. But, finally, what advocate of the text is there now 
to be found to confirm the statement, that St. Ambrose has 
charged the heretics with the erasure of the passage? In 
what part of the works of that Father is any such declara- 
tion forthcoming ; and on what authority has Dr. Hammond 
made this assertion ? Nay, show me the place only where 
St. Ambrose has taken the least notice of the. passage ; and 
I will be ready to acknowledge, that it is not destitute of sup- 
port, nor unworthy of being vindicated, as a genuine text of 
Scripture. Alas, this learned defence of Dr. Hammond sets 
all learning at clefiance ; nor is there so much as one single 
argument made use of by him, which is not advanced upon 
grounds palpably mistaken: and incorrect.'' * 

In 1707, Dr. Mill published at Oxford his valuable edition 
of the Greek New Testament, containing at least 30,000 
vanous readings. He admits the disputed passage into his 
text ; but m his prolegomena and notes, he furnishes a mass 
of evidence, from which it is difficult to understand how he 
could draw an inference in favor of the passage* So it was, 
however. As an honest critic, he fairly adduces the evidence 
• Oxlee^s Letters to the Bishop of Salisbury, pp. 4-7. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



aO CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

<m boA sides^ and fturBiBhes nU his readera with data, on 
wbieh thej maj either receire or reject hia opinion aa a dti- 



The Abb^ L. Begeiv Dean of Bourgesy pubiished at Papia, 
in 1715^ Twa Difiaertatkois ; in the firsi e£ whkh he defenda 
1 John V. 7. ^' It ought to be HieBtioned to hia credit," saj« 
Porson, ^that hairing exannoed the MSS. in the Bc^al L>- 
toirj at Paria^ he subscribed to the opinicMi of Lucas Bm- 
gensis, Simon, and Le Long^ and ingenuously confessed thai 
the semicirele io Sti^ena's edkion, which now follows the 
words h T^ ovpcat^ m the seventh verse, ought to be placed 
after the worda ivrj y^m the eighth." * 

After the appearance c^ M^'s edilion, Tbomaa Elml!^ a 
Presbyterian miaist£tr of Dublin, published ^ A FuH Enqnixj 
into the odriginal Autliortty of that Text, 1 Johot v. 7. Ceiip- 
taining an Account of Dr. MiU's Evidences from Antiquity, 
ior aud against its being genuuie. With an Examination 
of hia Judgment thereupon. Humbly addressed to both 
Houses of Convocation.," London, 1715, 1719, 8vow This ia 
a bold and acute paflsphlet ; in which the adthor ahtaws that 
the passage is wasting in the andent Greek MSS., the an- 
cient versions, and is never cited by the; prinutive fathers ; 
and that the other arguments offered in support of the text 
are insufficient. Whether it was in jest or in. earnest that he 
dedicated his work to the Convocation^ I wiJI not take it 
upon me to say* 

Father Simon and Emlyn were taken up by David MaJrtin, 
Pastor of the French ProtestMit Church a4i Utrecht I£a 
work first appeared ia French in 1717 ; and in 1719, it waa 
• Letters to Trayis, Prefftce, p. vi 



dbyGoOgk 



XMLTK. 21 

tnunlirted, thos^ moorrectly, into Sn^ish, by- Dr. fiaa. 
Jebb, wdth liie Ibllowii^ iitle : 

^ A Gnticai Dissertaiiim npoa the Seyentli Yerse of the 
Fiah Cluster of St. John's First Epistle. Wl^^in the 
Atlthentickness of this Text is fully proved againsi the Ob- 
JeeticMis of Mr. Smao. and the Modern Ariaos.'' London, 
Sfo* 

fkaoljn immediately published ^ An Ansurer to Mr. Mar- 
tio's Oitical Dissertation on 1 John v. 7, shewing the Insuf- 
ficiency of Ms JRi'vq^y and the £n*ors of his Suppwitians; 
by which he attera|^ to establish the Authority of that Text 
from BVffomd Manuseripts." London, 1719, %so. 

Martin, not intimidated, produced, wiUiout delay, ^An 
Cxaminatimi of Mr. Emlyn's Answer to the Dissertation," 
X>(»ado&, 1719, 8to; which was closely fi^lowed by Emlyn, 
Bi a << B^ly to>Mr. Martin's Examination of the Answer to 
his IKssertation,^ London, 1720, Svo. 

Eknlyn's pamphlets wei«e first published anonymously; 
Uiey were afterwards collected, and, with other things, pub- 
lished with his name in 1719, And then in his Works, VoL 
n. 1746. 

Mar^, in another tract, was allowed to have the last 
word. " The Genuineoess of 1 John v. 7. demonstrated by 
Proo& which are beyond all Exceptions," &c London, 
1722, 8vo. 

In th» performance he further endeavored to maintain his 
former positions by the testimony of the Greek and Latin 
Churches, and particularly by a Greek MS. found in Ireland. 
Thus the debate rested between these combatants. 

Emijm engaged in this controversy at the request of Dr. 
Samuel Clarke and Mr. Whiston ; the former being too wary 
of his reputation to appear publicly in a. discussion which 
would have confirmed the suspicion of his Arianism; and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



22: CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

the latter not deeming it proper, fit the time, to i^pear on 
the field. Whiston tells us that both Dr. Bentley and Dr. 
Waterland approved of Emlyn's view of the subject. Wat- 
erland, though so zealous a Trinitarian, never quotes this 
passage as genuine. 

Emiyn was a man of undoubted talents and learning, 
whose severe and unmerited sufferings, as an Arian, have 
given considerable celebrity to his name. In his first work 
on this subject, he professes to give only the evidence as 
furnished by Dr. Mill, in his critical edition of the New 
Testament, and his reasons for coming to a different conda- 
sion from that evidence, from that which Mill himself had 
adopted. His doctrinal sentiments, perhaps, naturally led 
him to take the strongest .view of the side of the question 
which he espoused, and to. rejoice in the strength which it 
seemed to bring to the Arian cause. But, while the state of 
his mind predisposed him to give all the weight possible to 
the evidence against the passage, it would be unfair to charge 
him with partiality or injustice in the discussion. 

In the subsequent tracts which he published, he, of course^ 
followed the steps of his opponent ; sometimes strengUiening 
his original position, by adding to the negative evidence 
against the passage ; and at other times exposing the igno« 
ranee, the evasions, the false reasonings, and inconclusive 
arguments of Martin. 

Of David Martin it is proper to speak well, as of a man 
who held sound views of the truth, and was zealously dis- 
posed to maintain them. In learning he was very inferioi: 
to Simon, and much inferior to Emlyn ; though far from be- 
ing contemptible as a scholar. Considering the materials he 
had to work with, and the opponents he encountered, it must 
be confessed that he makes no despicable figure. His mode 
of treating the subject, however, is more calculated to throw 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



CALAMY. ^ 23 

dastiii tte eyes of his readers th^ to enlighten and con- 
vince them. His judgment was too weak, and his indigna- 
tion at Arianism too ardent to enable him to do justice to a 
subject which he treated with all the warmth of a theologian, 
rather than with the coolness of a critic. It has been boasted, 
that, in the controversy with Emlyn, he had the last word ; 
and that though Emlyn lived more than twenty years after 
Martin's last publication, he never attempted to reply. But 
this needs excite no wonder. Emlyn thought there was no 
honor to be acquired in " thrice slaying the slain ; " and at 
the dose of his second reply thus takes leave of his oppo- 
Dent : — " When a controversy comes to consist only of te- 
dious repetitions, and personal reflections, 'tis a sign it either 
is near to an end, or ought to be so." If Martin had the 
honor to be left in possession of the field, it has been thought 
by many learned men the only honor he obtained. 

I>r. Edmund Calamy, one of the most learned divines 
among the English Dissenters of the period, was the next 
person who took the field on the affirmative side of this con- 
troversy. He published, in 1722, "A Vindication of that 
celebrated Text, 1 John v. 7, from being spurious; and an 
Explication of it, upon the supposition of its being genuine. 
In four Sermons." London. 8vo. These discourses were 
occasioned by the Arian Controversy, which then so unhap- 
pily distracted both the Church m\d the Dissenters, and are 
annexed to thirteen sermons on the Doctrine of the Trinity, 
preached at Salter's HaU in 1719 and 1720. In these four 
discourses. Dr. Calamy has chiefly in his eye Mr. Emlyn and 
Father Simon, glancing occasionally at Whiston and some 
others. The Doctor had no opportunity of examining MSS. 
himself, and therefore on this part of the subject he reasons 
entirely on the authority of others ; but justice obliges me to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



24 CONTBOVEBSY BfiSPfiCtlKG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

State that thk ftatfaoritj fie does not alwajs allege eofteetly. 
The whole coiit»ov«f«y ifi one of faet And eyidence ; wh^ it 
comes therefore to be observed that ^ese are not faMf 
stated, or are deKtereosly evaded, a stispick)!! is induced ^at 
the cause Is not goed« It might be infl^n^ from Dr. Cda- 
my's reasonings, that a considerable nnmber of Greek and 
Latin M8S» and the consent of many Greek and Latin 
Anthers coBcnrred in supporting thSa text. The contrary 
had even then beea very satisfactofrily made out, and is now 
completely proved. 

The best of the four discourses is the la^t, in which, as^ 
suming the testimony to be authentic, he reasons on its nattnre 
and design. The ChristiaQ reader will cordfaHy Concur in 
his concluding observations. ^ Since the Fadier, the Word, 
and the Hdy Ghost are witnesses in order to our confimm* 
tion, let us readily believe the truth of whatever they testify, 
provided we have but good reason to believe that they have 
testified it, though it seem ever so much t» thwart our natural 
sentiments, or our inclinations. This is a thing that highly 
becomes such dosely dependent, and such dark and dim- 
sighted creatures as we are ; and it is what we cannot have 
any occasion to be ashamed of. Where Father, Word, and 
Holy Spirit have gone before, let us readily follow. What 
light they are pleased to give us, let us thankfully receive, 
and carefully improve ; and from them jointly let us take our 
measures. And then, if Father, Son, and Holy Spint can 
help us to happiness, we need not be appr^ensive that we 
shall miss of it, either m the life that now is, or in that which 
is to oome." 

Some time after the ptrt^lteation of Dr. Oalamy's Discour- 
ses, an anonymous tract appeared on the same side, with ^e 
following title: "An Enquiry into the Authority <rf the 

, Digitized by VjOOQIC 



SMALBROKE. 26 

Primitive Gmn{iliil«i»iaB ScKtkm 6f tk% Kew Testament, as 
pmmpally foosded im tke most Andefit Vatlean Mann- 
ficiipt; togetb^ -with some Researeh of that Manuscript 
In order te deddeihe Dispute abotit 1 Jafcn v. 7. In a Let- 
4^ to the Bet. Kr« Avthdeaoon BenUe^, MiMter <€ Trinity 
GoUege in Cambridge." 1723. 

Hj o^py of Uus pamphlet k cMHakied in Lord Somen's 
CirileetiaB of Traets,^ in wliidi it iras reprinted, without 
meodoBing ilie daite of &fb ot^nal efition, or the nfune of 
the anthor. 

The smter of ttds tfaet mm {Bidiaid] Smalbrc^e, Bishop 
«f liehfiald and Corentty, who distingtiigihed himsetf both in 
the Arian Oontmversf , and in that with Wbolston. He was 
not disposed to adopt ^bm views of fimljm, nor was he satis- 
£ed inth the defence of die passage by MaHtn. Tet he 
jdleges Tory little ihat is new oa ^le stdbject. His whole 
argnment is fooaded on the enpposhion, that the Complu- 
l^Ksian edkors mserted the paauige from the Vatican man- 
. nscr^t Hence^ he exfaresses hia strong desire, that this 
jaanescripi dlioald be senght out and re-examined. Shonld 
it be found not to contain the disputed text, he admits it 
would cenfate the reasoningi of his essay ; but contends, ^at 
it stiil would uct follow that te passage was aparioas. The 
following extract contains his ai^^umeat:-^ 

*' Upon the whoH if M ehtSk appear from the Yadcan MS. 
when relriev'd) tkat the Oemplntensian editoia inserted the 
4ispiited passage of St. John irom ^ait moot ancient copy, 
an «Qd wfH bo {Nit efiSsctually io the inauhs of the adversaries 
of that passi^. And if it cannot be discovered, bnt must 
Jbe gtren np ibr a ieet or peirish'd copy, yet still the strong 
pjTfikahiltlies will onq^Miey timt itte Goosfdiitensian editors 

• {Se« Vd. 1. pp. 480-606 of the edition of 1748, or Vol. XHI. pp. 468-* 
tin,CNLliNS.— &D«) 
9 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



^6 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING X JOHN V. 7. 

inserted the said passage from it. However, it is very just 
and reasonable that the controversy about this passage should 
be suspended, till the greatest diligence possible be used to 
find out the celebrated Vatican MS. And then it will be 
time enough to decide upon the authority of this passage. 
In the mean time, as the method proposed by yourself, Sir, 
of endeavoring to find out whether the said passage be gen- 
uine or noty by an aecurate collation of the most ancient 
Latin 'MSS, of the New Testament, as supposed to be trans- 
lated from the most ancient uncorrupt Greek copies; as this 
consequential method, I say, is subsidiary, and may contri- 
bute to give some new light in this dispute, (though it cannot 
be allowed ta be a decisive argument,) so is-it highly proba- 
ble that it is a method which will be' serviceable towards the 
establishment of this passage of St. John. For far the 
greater number of those Latin MSS. that have been hitherto 
collated by learned men, retain this passage ; and many of 
them, no doubt, are very ancient Whatever be the result 
of collating your own Latin MSS., asserted by you to be 
very andent, the public will be glad to be informed of it. 
For though it should happen that they want this passage, 
their authority will not be conclusive against that of a 
multitude <^ other very ancient Latin MSS. that are not 
[Query ?] known to retain it. 

"On the other side, if it shall appear from the Vatican 
MS., when retriev'd, that the Ccwnplutensian editOTS did not 
insert the disputed passage of St. John from that most an- 
cient copy, but from Latin copies of great Antiquity; though 
.'such a discovery would cpnfute the reasons assigned in this 
discourse, yet agreeably to the method proposed by yourself, 
Sir, of finding out the genuine Greek text by the concur- 
rence of very ancient Latin copies, that were translated from 
the most ancient and uncorrupt Greek MSS., I say upon this 



dbyGoogk 



BENTLEY. 27 

principle, neither the reputation of the Complutensian edi- 
tion of the Greek Testament, nor the authority of this con- 
troverted text in particular, would be affected by such a dis- 
covery. For if Stunica and his brethren were persuaded 
that n)06^, if not all, the Greek MSS. of St. John that are 
now extant, were corrupted, and that the Latin copies that 
retain tliis conttt)verted passage were agreeable to the most 
ancient uncorrupted Greek copies, and that consequently this 
passage ought justly to be inserted in that edition, as in fact 
it was^; I do not see why they ought to undergo any censure 
from yourself, who pay so great a regard to, and lay so mighty 
a stress upon, the ancient Latin copies of the New Testament, 
whatever opinion the rest of the leanied world might, on this 
occasion, entertain, by way of diminution, of the authority of 
the Complutensian editors." 

That neither the Vatican MS., nor any other used by the 
^ Complutensian editors, contains the passage, has been most 
satisfactorily proved: consequently the main argument of 
this pamphlet, by the Bii^hop's own admission, is overthrown. 
The other argument, addressed to Dr. Bentley himself, on 
the ad hommem principle, is worth very little. Bentley's 
edition was never published, so that how the passage might 
have appeared in it, may be matter of dispute ; but that he 
believed the passage to be spurious is well ascertained, from 
a discourse which he • delivered on the subject, which, it is 
supposed, is still preserved. A letter also from Bentley to 
an anonymous friend, shows that his sentiments were under- 
stood to be unfavorable to the authority of the verse ; and 
certainly was not intended to remove that unfavorable im- 
pression. The execution of his edition of the New Test^ 
ment on the priftciple of that letter would undoubtedly have 
left out the text As this letter is important, both in refer- 
ence to this dispute and to the nature of the text of Bentley's 
intended edition of the New Testament, it is here subjoined. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



us CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7 

"TsuL Cqsjl,, Jmkl 1, 1716-17. 

^Sir, — Yours of December the 20ih came safely to my 
hands, wherein yoa tell me from common fame, that in my 
designed edition of the New Testament, I purpose to leave 
out the verse of John's Epistle I. chap. 5. t. 7. 

^ About a year ago, reflecting upcm some passages of St 
Hierom, that he had a^osted and castigated the then Latin 
Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars, and had kept the very 
order of the words of the original : I formed a thought, a 
fricri^ that if St. Jerom's true Latin Exemf^r coijd now 
be come at, it would be found to agree exactly with the 
Greek text of the same age : and so the old copies of each 
lafiguage (if so agreeing) would giver mutual proof, and 
even demcMistration to each other. Whereupon rejecting the 
printed editions of each, and the several manuscripts <^ sev^i 
centuries and under, I made use of none but those of a thou- 
sand years ago or above (of which sort I have twenty now 
in my study, Uiat one with another make 20,000 years). I 
had die pleasure to find, as I presaged, that they agreed ex- 
actly, Hke two tallies, or two indentures ; and I am able from 
thence to lead men out of the labyrinth of 60,000 various 
lections (for St. Jerom's Latin has as many varieties as the 
Greek), and to give the text as it stood in the best copies in 
the time of the Council of Nice, without the error of fifty 
words. 

" Now in this work I indulge nothing to any conjecture, 

not even in a letter, but proceed solely upon authority of 

copies and fathers of that age. And what will be the event 

about the said verse of John, I myself know not yet ; having 

^not used all the (dd copies that I have information o£ 

^' But by this you see, that in my proposed work the fiUe 
of that verse will be a mere question offtxct You endeavor 
to prove (and that 's all you aspire to) that it may have been 



dbyGoogk 



BENTLET, 29 

Writ by the Apostle, being consonant to bis other doctrine. 
This I concede to you ; and if the fourth century knew that 
text, let it come in, in God's name : but if that age did not 
know it, then Arianism in its hei^t was beat down, without 
the help ci that Terse : and lei the fact prove as it will, the 
doctrine is unshaken. 

«Yours, 
^ «Ria Bentlet." 

As, among other thii^ £scussed in this ocmtroyersy, the 
opinion of Dn Bentley respecting the authority of this verse 
has been much debated, it may be proper shortly to advert 
to it Person quotes Bentley as in opposition to the verse, 
while Bish(^ Burgess manifests considerable anxiety to se- 
cure his suffrage in support of the passage ; and Bishop Van 
Mildert also indines to doubt respecting Bentley's regarding 
the passage as spurious.* Nor is it surprising that this con- 
cern should be felt to ascertain the opinion of so distinguished 
a scholar, on a point he was so well qualified to determine 
That opinion, if fully formed, would be worth a host of Mar^ 
tins and Travises, men so little qualified to do justice to such 
an investigation. Crito Cantabrigiensis has set the matter to 
rest respecting Bentley. After giving some account of the 
suspicions entertained at the time, that Dr. Bentley's o^union 
was not in favor of the authenticity of the passage, he thus 
states the authority on which it can no longer be doubted 
which side of the question was espoused by that eminent 
scholar. 

" Mr. Whiston, in a letter to a friend (1724), mentions Dr. 
BenUey * who read a very learned Lecture at Cambridge, to 
prove 1 John v. 7. to be spurious.' * But he dares not now,' 
continues Whist<»i, ^ wholly omit it in the text of his edition 

♦ Life of Waterland, p. 26. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



so CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. * 

of the New Testament which he has promised : ' — a proof 
of the jealousy with which Dr. Bentley's proceedings wert. 
watched. On another occasion, Mr. Whiston writes to the 
same effect: *This treatise (Emlyn's Fnll Inquiry), as I 
have been informed, was alluded to by Dr. Bentley in his 
famous Lecture at Cambridge when he stood candidate for 
the Chair of Regius Professor of Divinity, wherein he also 
gave up that text, and publicly proved it to be spurious.' 
Dr. Middleton, at the very time a resident member of the 
University, asserts the same thing, as a matter perfectly no- 
torious. * He (Bentley) has already, we knoWy determined 
against the genuineness of the famous passage, 1 John t. 7/ 
Such are the accounts which were delivered by the best in* 
formed of Dr. Bentley's contemporaries ; and have, till now, 
been received as true, by persons not at all remarkable for 
credulity. In what way then are these statements to be set 
aside ? Ancient testimony is opposed by modem argument, 
after the following fashion. Dr. Bentley observed, in a Let- 
ter, that in his intended edition of the New Testament, he 
should make great use of old Latin MSS. ; that, not having 
seen all the old copies he had information of, he knew not 
at that time what would be the fate of the text in question : 
and that if he found the text to have existed in the fourth cen- 
tury, he would admit it And thus, because Dr. Bentley, in 
this letter, gave no opinion touching the verse, and attributed 
great importance to the old Latin MSS., it is inferred that 
if he * read a Lecture to prove this verse spurious,' * the Lec- 
ture and the Letter must have been very much at variance.' 
Now, in answer to all this, I would humbly suggest three 
things: 1. That a person who will not decide a question 
before inquiry is by no means incompetent to do so after- 
wards : 2. That, as the Letter was written on the first of 
January, and the Lecture delivered about the first of May 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



BENTLEY. 31 

following, Dr. Bentley may have examined his MSS. and 
made up his mind during the interval : and, 3. That as we 
know not how Dr. Bentley reasoned^ we ought to receive the 
eoudusion at which he arrived oh the information of his 
contemporaries. In truth, take the argument above men- 
tioned as an argument upon a mere hypothetical case, and 
its weakness is excessive ; but consider its conclusion as in 
direct opposition to a fact stated on evidence, and it disap- 
pears, like a bubble, the instant it is touched. '. . . . For the 
purpose of ascertaining the tendency of a Lecture read in 
1717, I must be excused for trusting to the testimony of 
Conyers Middleton — who lived on the spot at the time 
when the Lecture was delivered — in preference to the most 
ingenious conjectures of the present day, although sanctioned 
by the high authority of the Bishops of Durham and Salis- 
bury."* 

The first edition of the Greek New Testament published 
in England, which omits the passage, appeared in 1729. 

• Crito Cantab, pp. 154-158; [Bp. Monk, in his Life of Bentley, (Lon- 
don, 1830, pp. 849-851,) has placed the fact of Bentley's rejection of the 
passage beyond the possibility of dispute. Referring to the letter of Jan- 
nary 1, 1717, quoted above, he states that " Bentley, finding how much the 
question interested the public mind, and perceiving that there was ex- 
pected from the editor of the New Testament a clear expression of opinion 
on this point, applied himself in the course of the four following months 
to examine all the evidence on both sides. Having chosen this as the sub- 
ject of his Praelection, he gave a regular history of the verse, and an ac- 
count of the manner in which the passage of St. John is quoted by ancient 
writers; and concluded with a decided rejection of the verse; maintaining 
at the same time the doctrine of the Trinity in its orthodox acceptation, 
and showing that it stood not in any need of such dubious support/' After 
citing the testimony of those who had heard the Lecture, he adds : " Dr. 
Vincent, the late learned Dean of Westminster, had once the original of 
this piece in his possession, lent to bun by a relative of Bentley : a letter 
of hjs now lies before me, containing the account of the contents which I 
have just given, and adding, that to him * it was conviction.* " — Ed.] 



dbyGoOgk 



82 CONTBOVEBSY RESPKOTJNG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

^ Tk» New Testament in Greek and English. Containing 
the Original Text ccMrected from the Authority of the most 
Authentic Manuscripts : and a new Version form'd agreeably 
to the Illustrations of the most learned Commentators and Crit- 
ics : with Notes and various Beading" London, 2 vols^ 8vo. 

The editor and translator of this work was Dr. Hjm^ c^ 
whose history v^y little is known, but that he belonged to 
the free school of theolc^. The Greek text is beautifully 
printed, but its authority as a critical edition does not stand 
high, as the editor appears to have been ^ rash and a vain 
man, who to<^ very unwarrantable liberties with the text, 
and seldom assigns satisfactory reasons for the alterations, 
which he made with mudi freedom. Indeed, his object 
seems to have been to throw a degree of uncertainty over 
the whole text and canonical authority of the New Testii- 
ment On the disputed verse, however, he enters at some 
length. He gives a list of Greek MSS. in which it is not to 
be found ; (^ Latin MSS. in which it is omitted ; of Greek 
fathers who do not notice it ; of Latin writers in the first five 
centuries who do not mention it; and of printed editions 
which want it. He then notices the Greek and Latin aur 
thorities which are supposed to be in its favor. He con- 
cludes his examination and comparison by exclaiming: <^In a 
word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove that the con* 
troverted text in St. John is spunQtHy by what evidence can • 
it be prov'd that any text in St. John is genuine ? The au- 
thority upon which any Greek text is founded, is only the 
authority of the Greek fathers, and their authority is founded 
upon that of the antient Greek MSS. Now all the Greek 
fathers, not one excepted; all the Greek MSS., the Irish 
one only excepted ; all the antient Versions, the old Italic 
and St Jerom's, the Syriac* the iBthiopic, the Arabic* an4 
tiie Coptic; all the antient Latin faUiers, and the most 



dbyGoogk 



TWEJLLa 33 

antient Latin MSS» of the New Testament, do unanimoaslj 
exclaim against the controverted text." * 

The publication of this wcwk led to the following: — "A 
Critical Examination of the late New Text and Version of 
the New Testament: wherein the Editor's corrupt Text, 
false Version, and fallacious Notes are detected and censured. 
By Leonard Twells, Vicar of St. Mary's* In Three Parts. 
In the Second of which Justice is done to the famous Text of 
1 John V. 7, against his partial Representation of that Mat- 
ter." London, 1731. 

Twells, the author of this examination, was a clergyman 
of the Church of England, not very distinguished for the ac- 
curacy of his researches or the extent of his learning. It 
was no hard task to expose the incorrectness of Mace's text, 
and tha blunders and absurdities of his translation. But 
in attacking his omission of the disputed passage in John, 
Twells had not Mace, but Mill's authorities to contend with. 
In doing this, he flounders in the darkness of his own mis- 
conceptions, hazards the most groundless assumptions, and 
dogmatically asserts what had been repeatedly disproved. 
He concludes a long discussion by a passage precisely the 
opposite of that quoted from Mace, in the latter part of 
which, it must be acknowledged, he has a just stroke at that 
rash 'and vulgar critic: "The disputed passage of 1 John v. 
7, has ."o many marks of genuineness, that if it had not con- 
tained a doctrine, to which the disputers of this world have 
always shown the utmost aversion, its authority had never 
been called in question. An undoubted proof of wiiich is 
this, that many texts of Scripture, according to their present 
reading, are worse supported than this, and yet receive no 
molestation from critics. And of all others, the editor should 



.* VoLlLp.984. 
2* 



dbyGoogk 



84 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

be the last to object to the disputed passage, as defective in 
point of testimony, who admits some lections into his new 
text upon the credit of simple vouchers, and others against 
all authority whatever." (p. 154.) 

David Casley published, in 1734, "A Catalogue of the 
MSS. of the King's Library, together with 150 specimens of 
the manner of writing in different ages, from the third to the 
fifteenth century.*' In his preface to this Catalogue, he refers 
to the controversy respecting the heavenly witnesses, and 
gives his opinion, that the Codex Britannicus is " a modern 
MS. probably translated, or corrected, from the Latin Vul- 
gate." 

Bengelius published his valuable critical edition of the 
Greek Testament in 1734 ; in which the principles <Jn which 
he constructed his text led him to insert the passage. He 
adopted no reading which had not previously appeared in 
some printed edition, except in some cases in the Apocalypse. 
In consequence of following a law, which he had laid down 
for himself, more specious and better adapted to meet the 
popular feeling on certain points than solid in itself, he ad- 
mitted the passage ; and yet the statements in his note seem 
fatal to its authority. He allows that it exists in no genuine 
manuscript; that the Complutensian editors interpolated it 
from the Latin 'version ; that the Codex Britannicus is good 
for nothing ; that Stephens's semicircle is misplaced ; that no 
ancient Greek writer cites the heavenly witnesses; that many 
Latins omit them ; that tjiey were neither era<ed by the Ari- 
ans, nor absorbed by the homceoteleuton. He thought the 
evidence afforded by the African Church, and some other 
considerations, favorable to the passage, and therefore in- 
serted it, but, on the whole, he had no strong conviction of 
its authenticity. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



BENGEUUS. 85 

Ab a good deal, however, has been said of the weight of 
Bengel's opinion, the following view of his conduct in this 
matter seems to be characterized by great accuracy and can- 
dor. "Bengelius was, probably, the first advocate of the 
verse who fairly gave up the notion that the Complutensian 
editors fmd Robert Stephens printed the passage as they 
found it in Greek MSS. He also allowed due weight to the 
silence of the fathers with regard to the text. In fact, he 
was a good workman ; and, in the progress of his undertak- 
ing, he cleared the subject of many incumbrances. He con- 
demned the principle of defending a text because it favored 
a particular doctrine. He disdained to measure a person's 
orthodoxy by his reception of the text of the heavenly wit- 
nesses. He contended that the great object of inquiry was, 
whether what was held to have been written really had been 
written. He censured the mode in which the verse had, in 
many instances, been defended ; and even mentioned its great 
champion. Dr. Twells himself, with no gi*eat reverence. To- 
wards the close of his inquiry, he seems to have considered 
the subject as one on which learned men might justly hold 
opposite opinions ; and in his Greek Testament he stated his 
wish, that the reader should suppose, as his own judgment 
might direct, either the seventh verse to be erased, or the 
eighth verse to precede the seventh ; for his own part recom- 
mending the latter supposition. This mode of proceeding 
Was anything but agreeable to those who were resolved that 
the text should be vindicated, at all events. In literary cam- 
paigns, the established rule seems to be, that he who first de- 
serts a position as untenable, however valiantly he may fight 
in other instances, shall be accounted as little better than one 
of the enemy; and accordingly, Bengelius was, more than 
once, obliged to defend himself from fclie charge of indiffer- 
ence to the cause in which he was engaged. * In vain,' says 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



a$ CONTBOVERSY B8ff?IOT»^ 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Mr. PorsoD, ^Bdaj Simon, La Croae, MicbaeliSy and Qties- 
bach, declare their belief of the doctrine [of the Triniij] ; 
they must defend it in the Catholic manner, and with the 
Oatholio teste : nor is all thb enough ; but, in defending tfa« 
genuinene»i of a particular text, they must use every one of 
the same argumeata tbat have ahready been nae^ mthomt 
rejecting any upon thei idle pretence that tbej ai^ ^Edae or 
trifling. I pity Bengelius. He had the . weakness, mhkk 
fools call candor, to reject som^ of the argumenfi that had 
been employed in de^noe of thia celebrated verse^ and 
brought upon himself a seyere, bqt just rebuke from an 
opposer of De Missy (Joum. Brit, X»' 133) ; ^h^f^ he i9 
ranked wiUi those ^ who, undor protest <tf defS^nding the three 
heavenly witnesses with moderation, defend them so geotly 
that a smpicious reader might doubt whether they defended 
them in earnest } though God forbid that we should wish to 
insinuate any suspicion of Mr. Bengelius's orthodoxy •' " * 

In 1734, a volmne of discourses on the disputed passage 
was puldished, with the following title: <SThe Doetriae of 
the Trinity, as it is contained in the Scrq>tnres, explained 
and confirmed: its Consistency wiUi the Principles of Natural 
Religion deared, and Objections to the Contrary answered, 
&C." The author of these discourses was the Sev. JameQ 
Sloss, M. A., a dissenting minister of the Independent de- 
nomination at Nottingham. He seems to have been a man 
of respectable attainments a9 a scholar ; and defends the doc- 
trine of the Trinity with considerable ability, though not al- 
ways with those arguments which will stand the test of a 
critical examination. Of this his dioice of the disputed pavi* 
sage for the text of the whde eighteen sermons is an illuat 

• Crito Cantal^rigiensis, pp. 811-814. [Porson's Letters to Travia, ppi 
18- 20— Ed.) 



dbyGoOgk 



BLOS^ 37 

^«tion. With his* general views or defence of the doctrine 
of the Trinity, howevw, I have 9I present nothing to da 
Our business is with his account of the testimony of the 
heavenly witnesses. Dr^ Burgess, wbo seems to have qqI- 
lected every nanjue and authority bearing on his side of the 
question, seems to have known nothing of Jaoies SI08& . This 
will be my axciisie £0^ noticing him more particularly. 

In the first aennon he engages '^ to trace the ^veral ages 
b^w^QQ this and the apostles^ and to show how this text in 
particidaf has been owni^ as authentic by the whole Chiis^ 
tian Church, both Greek and Latu;u" Had he succeeded in 
this attempt) we should never have heard of the sneers of 
Gibbo% nor been &vored with the debates of Travis and 
Porson. But» alas ! the words we have quoted^ big with 
promise, end in miserable dis^poantment He <|uotes t^ 
usual passages fixnn TertuUian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Yigiliua 
Tapsen9i% Engenius^ Fujgentius, &q^ &c^ and accordii^ly 
arrives at his conclusion with great apparent ease, that the 
passage has beea disputed only by Anans Bfid Socinians. 

The disoouniea appear to have attracted some attention, as 
they led to an epistolary controversy respecting tlie authority 
of the text, which is printed at the end of the book. A 
gentleman, whose name is only given as the Bev. T. P., of 
C^ — ^1, addressed a letter to Mr. Sloss, stating to him. the 
doubts which he entertained about this passs^e^ and the gen- 
eral grounds of those doubts„ and requesting bis sohition of 
them, Tha letter is written very calmly and respectfully, 
and shows that the writer of it knew very well the sulgect 
on which he requests information. To this Mrw Sloaa replies 
in a letter of considerable length, which conta^ins some acute 
observations on the doctrine of the Trinity, but utterly fells 
in giving the information on certain matters of fact respect- 
ing the authenticity of the disputed verse. This bis antag- 

* 

Digitized by Google 



88- CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

onlst notices in a second letter to Mr. Sloss, which produced 
two in reply. These were followed by another short epistle 
from T. P., demanding whether Mr. Sloss knew "of any 
other Greek manuscripts, beside that of Dublin, pow in be- 
ing, with the disputed verse in it ; and, secondly, whether he 
could prove that any editor of the printed copies ever had 
any such MSS. in his possession." To this Mr. Sloss re- 
turned a final answer, but which does not contain the infor- 
mation wanted. Here the debate closed. The parties seem . 
to have been matched nearly as Emlyn and Martin were. 
Sloss was, like Martin, an orthodox Trinitarian, and his cor- 
respondent was evidently of the school of Emlyn. In learn- 
ing and knowledge of the subject, however, both Sloss and 
his opponent were inferior to the two former controversialists. 
The letters occupy seventy-eight pages. 

In the critical edition of the New Testament published by 
Wetstein in 1752, the passage is marked as spurious. There 
is also attached to it a long and important note, in which the 
mark is justified by a reference to a much greater number of 
MSS. and versions than had ever before been quoted in the 
controversy. The leaning of Wetstein's mind to the Unitari- 
an hypothesis is well known, and has excited a suspicion that 
he may have been influenced by it in his rejection of this 
passage. This is scarcely candid, as he states fairly and fully 
the evidence on which he formed his decision. 

Part of the note, which contains Stephens's account of the 
use he made of his MSB., and of his mode of referring to 
them, with Wetstein's strictures on that account, it may be 
useful to quote. 

" In his preface to the third edition, Stephens says, * In the 
inner margin I have added various readings of the MSS., to 
each whereof the mark of the Greek numeral is subjoined. 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



WETSTEIN. 89 

wbich indicates the nam6 of the MS. whence it is taken ; or 
of the MSS. when they are many. And I have put the 
marks in succession from one to sixteen: so that the first 
stands for the Complutensian edition; the second, for the 
. most andent MS. in Italy, collated by my friends ; the third, 
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and fifteenth, the 
copies which I had out of the King's Library'; the others are 
those which I was able to collect from all quarters.' 

" 2h this account of things hy R. Stephens, and of his own 
great care and diUgencCj I have much to object*^ says Wet- 
stein; "first, what this very edition of Stephens plainly 
shows, that the editor has varied from all his MSS. and in- 
troduced a different reading, not only where he has marked 
in his margin that a different reading from that which he 
adopted was found in all the MSS. ; but often when other- 
wise. Add to this, that his second edition, though it has the 
same preface which is prefixed to the first, yet varies from it 
in fifly places at the least. 

" Secondly, I would observe, that Stephens had not the 
use of sixteen MSS. of the Fii-st Epistle of John, but only of 
seven. The first copy he made use of was not a MS., but 
the Complutensian edition of the N. T. The second, which is 
now the Cambridge MS., contains only the Gospels and the 
Acts. The third contains only the four Gospels, and is now 
to be seen in the King of France's Library, marked 2867. 
Also the sixth, in the King's Library, No. 2866. The eighth, 
ditto, 2861. The twelfth, ditto, 2862, and the- fourteenth, 
ditto, 2865. Lastly, the sixteenth is cited by Stephens only 
,in the Revelation. There is indeed a various reading of 
2 Pet. i. 4, produced from the fourteenth MS. ; but as that 
MS. is still in the King's Libraiy, and contains the Gospels 
only, it must have been a mistake of the compositors. Which 
kind of mistakes occurs elsewhere, and much more frequently 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



40 CONTROVERSY SESf ECTIK6 1 JOHN V. 7. 

• 

in tbig edition of Stephens's than is oommonly imagined. 
This any one will readilj find, who eompares the Comptcb- 
tensian edition with the various readings from it noted dowa 
by Stephens. 

^ But^ thirdly, what above all is to be noted, the inspeo 
tion of Stephens's MSS., and ocular demonstration show, not 
only that in those MSS. the words in heaven^ but all that fol- 
low so fap as to ^ spirit in the 8tb verse, are wanting [viz. 
the words in heaven^ the Father^ the Wordy and the ffo^ Spirit : 
and these three are one* And there are three that bear witneu 
in earthj, so that Stephens's semicircle, which should have 
been put aiier the words in earth (to mark the whole of what 
was wanting, as it is put in his Latin editions), was placed 
after the words in heaveuj by the £eiult of the compositors. 
This Lucas Brugensis had suspected to be tiie casej but 
Father Simon, Le Long, and L. Boger have clearly demon^ 
strated it Consult the MSS. in the King's Library; the 
2871st, which is Stephens's fourth ; the 3425th, which is his 
fifth; the 2242d, which is Stephens's seventh; the 2d69tb,- 
Stcphens's fifteenth (which however he never seems to have 
collated in the Epistles), 2870th, Stephens's tenth, and Cois- 
linianus 200, Stephens's ninth; and it will be manifest to 
every one, as it was to me who inspected these MSS. after 
those three eminent persons just named, that the whole c^ 
that verse of the three heavenly taitnesses was certainly want- 
ing in five of Stephens's MSS. of the Catholic Epistles, As 
to his two pther MSS., as they have never yet been found, 
there is no determining about them. 

" This mistake of tlie ccwnpositor," proceeds Wetstein, " led 
Beza wrong: who gives' this note upon the place, in his first 
and second editions. * This (7th) verse seems to me by aU 
means to be retained: — Erasmus reads it so in a British MS. 
I also have read it in some of our ItobcrCs (Stephens) andeni 



dbyGoogk 



MS&' Wkiah b aot to be imderdtooj, as if Beaa with fan 
own ejefr bad s»eea those MSS», for bow couM it be, when 
Stephens had left them behind him at Paris? but that he 
made use of Stephens's third edition for the purpose. Bat 
it maj be seid^ that- Stopheos oi^pfadt to h«ve inffturmed his 
i&iend Bezft of the mistake of ike compositor^ and should not 
Iiave suffered, that throogh this first edition ot Beza, printed 
with St^hen^'s tjpe%<MH} the editions that followed^ a mia- 
iake in so serious and importtot a point should haye be^i 
propagated &r and near* I confess there is a great ^al in 
this remark. But pei^iaps Stephens neglected to inform him 
ojf it : or, how shaU we ascertain, whether Beza's note was 
iqpproved or disliked by Stephana?" 

Sowi after Hie publication of this important work, several 
lett^» appeared against Martin and the disputed passage, in 
the Journal Britamiique.* Thej were writt^i by C4sar de 
Jj/LkBj, a native of Berlin, French preadier in the Savoy, and 
at St> James's. They discovered great learning and pei»* 
tratioii, but were written, ibr the most part, in rather too lu- 
dicrous a tone for serious criticism. In these letters were 
particularly exposed the ridiculous and &lHe ptieteaoe of 
Amelotte, that the disputed passage was contained in a Vati- 
can MS., and the absurd inference which some prions had 
deduced from Wetstein's correctiim of an erratom relative to 
the three lectionariee bel(»ging to C^sar de Missy ; this cor- 
rection having been converted into an acknowledgment, that 
the passage was contained in one of these three lectionaries.t 
<< De Misfy's ^te," saye Person, '' has been somewhat hard. 
He was bold eno'ugh to attack Anraloite'a veradty and Mar- 
tin's understanding. This provoked a nest of hornets. Four 

• [Tomes VHI. and IX., ITBa.^En.] 
t Msrsh's MichaelU^ YoU VL p, 414. 

Digitized by VjOOQiC 



42 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

anonymous writers f^l upon him ; three with personal abuse, 
the fourth with malignity, under the mask of moderation." * 

Nothing more of importance on the subject occurred till 
1754, when " Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newt^m to Mr. Le 
Clerc, upon the reading of the Greek text, 1 John v. 7 and 
1 Tim. iiL 1 6," appeared. They had been drawn up by Sir 
Isaac so early as the beginning of the century, and were at 
last published from the MSS.left by Le Clerc in the Library 
of the Remonstrants in Amsterdam. The first Letter is en- 
tirely devoted to the text of the heavenly witnesses. The 
first four pages of the MS. being lost, the beginning is sup- 
plied by the editor, whose name does not appear. The MS. 
was sent to Le Clerc by Mr. Locke, and is said to have been 
in his handwriting. It is almost entirely occupied with a 
history of what Sir Isaac considered the manner in which the 
testimony came to be surreptitiously inserted, first into the 
Latin MSS., and then into the printed Greek text Some 
of his remarks bear very hard upon Beza, whom he calla a 
dreamer, and almost justify the sneers of Gibbon. Sir Isaac 
assigns several reasons for believing that the Complutensian 
editors translated the passage from the Latin Vulgate. And, 
certainly, the marginal note attached to the passage in the 
Complutensian edition, a practice which is adopted in that 
edition only in two other places where the Greek MSS. are 
defective, and the silence of Stunica, one of the editors, in 
his controversy with Erasmus on the authority of Greek 
MSS., are strong negative proofs that the passage was trans- 
lated from the Vulgate. Sir Isaac also endeavors to explain 
the passage and its context without the three heavenly wit- 
nesses. He considers the spirit, the water, and the blood, 
to mean the promised spirit, the baptism of Christi and hia 

* Letters to Tmvls, p. W, 

Digitized by LjOOQ iC 



NEWTON. 48 

passion, in connection with his resurrection, all bearing testi- 
mony to his character and mission as the Son of God. 

The attention which this eminent man paid to biblical sub- 
jects must have been very considerable. The present tract 
diacoTers a good deal of critical reading, which, considering 
his circumstances and pursuits, would not have taken place, 
had his taste for the Scriptures not been cultivated. His 
leanings to Arianism, which were no doubt promoted by his 
acquaintance with Garke, Whistouj and other eminent per- 
sons of that school, are to be deplored. . But his character 
presents a noble contrast to that ruthless infidelity, or cheer- 
less scepticism, which characterize men infinitely his inferiors 
in aU the attainments of genuine philosophy. 

I cannot withhold from the reader, as Sir Isaac's ta^ct is 
Aot in many hands, his paraphrase of the verses in which the 
Words alleged to be spurious have been inserted. It is, at 
I^ist, a plausible interpretation of a very difficult passage. 

" Who is he that overcometh the worlds but he thcU belteveih 
^at Jesus is the Son of God; that Son spoken of in the 
Psalms, where he saith, ' Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee.' This is He that, after the Jews had long ex- 
pected him, came, first in a mortal body, hy baptism of watef*, 
and then in an immortal one, by shedding his blood upon the 
cross, and rising again from the dead ; not by water only, but 
by water and blood; being the Son of God, as well by his 
resurrection from the dead (Acts xiii. 83) as by his super- 
natural birth of the Virgin. (Luke i. 35.) And it is the 
Spirit also, that, together with the water and blood, beareth 
witness of the truth of his coming; because the Spirit is truth; 
and so a fit and unexceptionable witness. 

"-For there are three that bear record of his coming: the 
Spirit, which he promised to send, and which was since shed 
forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in varioua 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



44 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

gifts ; the bapdsm of Vfatery wherein Gk>d testtfied, ' This is 
mj beloved Son ' ; and the shedding of his Hood, aeoompanied 
widi his resorrectiony wherebj he became the most faithfttl 
martyr, or witness, of this truth. And tkeie ihrtCy the Sf^iil^ 
the baptism, and passioa of Christy a^ree in witnessing ofik 
and the same thing, (namelj, that the Son of God is come,) 
and therefore their evidence is strong : for the law requires 
but two consenting witnesses, and here we have three : and 
if we receive the wiineee of men, the threefold wiines9 of GoJt, 
which he bare of his Son, bj declaring at his bi^tism, * This 
is my beloved Son ' ; bj raisii^ him from the dead, and bj 
pouring out his Spirit on us, ie greater^ and therefore oi^ht 
to be more readily received. 

** This [Thus?] is the sense plain and natural, and the ar« 
gument fuU and strong ; but, if you insert the testimony of 
< the three in heaven,' you interrupt and spoil it For lite 
whole design <^ the Apostle being here to prove to men, by 
witness, the truth of Christ's coming, I would ask, how the 
testimony of ' the three in heaven ' makes to this purpose. 
If their testimony be not given to men, how does it proves to 
them the truth of Christ's coming? If it be, how ia the tefr- 
timony in heaven distinguished from that on earth? It is 
the same Spirit whidi witnesses in heaven and in earth. If 
in both cases it witnesses to us men wherein lies the difi^- 
ence between its witnessing in heaven, and its witnessing in 
earth ? If, in the first ease, it does not witness to men, to 
whom doth it witness? And to what purpose? And how 
does its witnessing make to the design of St John's discourse? 
Let them make good sense of it who are aUe. For my pari^ 
I can make none."* 

» Newton's Letters to Le Clerc, pp. 74-76. [This tract was published 
more correctly in Vol. V. of Horsley*8 edition of Newton*s Works (Lon- 
doD, 1786, 4to), under the titto^ ''An Historical Aeooaat of Two NotaUe 



dbyGoOgk 



1 



In 175^ the second edition of Dr. Beoson'g wodt cm tbe 
C»tlK>lic EpistlcB was pmblished.* Jxk the eeoond volume of 
this learned and valuaUe Oomineittarj, there is a Disserta- 
tioii ^ Omeemif^ ihB €renuineiiess e£ 1 John v. 7, 8." Dr. 
Benson^ as mi^t be expected, took decided pfurt against the 
i^eading. His Dissertation does not contain mneh tibat is 
arigind ; but gives a very lucid view of the substance of the 
evidence on which Dr. Benson formed his opinion. He be- 
gins with the fathers, aad shows, that while TertuUian, 
Cjprian, and Jerome have been referred to, no satisfactcHy 
evidence exists in their writings that any of them had read 
this passage. He next notices the Greek MSS^ and afleges 
that the J -fhnsish no authority for the insertion of the passage. 
Ttie w^cient visions, he maintains, are all on the same side. 
The evidence against the text is next produced, and ^Uie 
som of the whole matter ^ is thus given by the Doctor, m 
ihe way of accounting for the introducdon of the passage. 

*^ To snm up the whole matter. The true state of ^e case 
seems to have been this : As these words were not written 
by St. John himself, they were not in any ancient MS. of 
Version, nor known to any of the ancient fathers. But Ter- 
tullian applying these words of ver. 8 (These three are one) 
to Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, Cyprian took that for the 
mystical interpretation of ver. 8. By him, Facundus, Eu- 
dierius, Fulgentius, Austin, and others, were led into that 
interpretation. And, very probably, Cyprian himself, or 

Oomiptlons of Seriptnre. In a Letter to a Friend. Kow firit pabltshed 
entire froip a MS. in the .Author's handwriting in the possession of the 
?«v. Dr. Ellens, Dean of Carlisle.** It was reprinted in Sparks*8 ** Collec- 
tion of Essays and Tracts-fh'TheoIogy,** Vol. II. (Boston, 1838), and in a 
separate Tc^nme, London, 1880, 8yo. The quotation giyen above is eoa- 
Ufrmed to the text in Horsley*8 edition. — Ed.] 

* Mr. Butler strangely characterises this work as ** a Paraphrase of the 
Gospels.** See Horn Bib. L p. 1^78. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



46 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

rather some of his admirers, wrote that interpretation in tbe 
margin, over-against ver. 8, as a gloss. And by some futune 
transcriber it was incorporated into the text itself. 

" There are, at this day, several MSS., both Ghreek and 
Latin, which have it in the margin. And such insertions of 
explanatory words, or phrases, from the margin, into the tex^ 
are common in MSS. Jerome, in one of his letters, saya, 
that an explanatory note, which he himself had made in the 
margin of his psalter, had been incorporated by some trsM- 
scriber into the text And Dr. Mill points out many similar 
instances. 

" The English Polyglot, and six other editions of the Sy- 
riac New Testament, inform us that the Syriac Version has 
not the seventh verse. Tremellius likewise observes the 
same thing. But in a marginal note, he has translated the 
seventh verse into Syriac ; though he dared not insert it inle 
the text in his edition. However, Gutbirius inserted it, c©B- 
trary to the authority of all the Syriac copies, both printed 
and manuscrfpt. And, after him, Schaaf, without the authoiw 
ity of one MS. copy of the New Testament in Syriac, hath 
likewise, in his edition of the Syriac New Testament, boldly, 
without any. apology, and without any mark of distinction, 
inserted Tremellius' his translation into the text. Thus we 
see by what steps it might be at first brought into the text. 
Sonie zealous men have called it a grand forgery. And Gut- 
birius an^ Schaaf cannot easily be excused. !3ut it is possi- 
ble that the transcriber who first inserted it in the text might 
apprehend, that, as he found it interlined, or in the margin, - 
it had been omitted by the former copyist ; and that, there- 
fore, he did well in supplying that omission. Others, again, 
copied after him. And thus it got into some few (but not 
into the generality) of Latin copies. From those Latin 
copies, or quotations from thence, it was very probably trans- 



dbyGoogk 



GIBBON. 47 

lated into Greek, and inserted into the text in some modern 
manuscripts, and interlined, or put in the margin of MSS. 
of an older date, — as it is now found to be in several MSS^ 
^Greek and Latin, in both public and private libraries. 

" To make it spread, some busybody, about the eighth or 
jaipth century, by a pious fraud, forged the preface to the 
CSatbolic Epistles, under the name of Jerome. And to give . 
it the authority of ^mtiquity, ascribed the restoring of this 
disputed text, in ike Latin copies, to that learned father ; at 
the same time complaining of the unfaithfulness df the Latin 
translators for leaving it out From thence it appears, that 
Mhen that preface was forged, the disputed text was in very 
few Latin cc^ies. But such a preface, under the name of 
Jerome, would induce many for the future to insert it. 
. '' Thus it may be accounted for why it is not found in the 
ioicient Greek MSS. or the ancient versions ; why it is not 
^looted by the primitive fathers ; why it appears more early 
in the Latin tlmn in the Greek MSS. ; and how it con^s to 
be in our printed copies at this day." * * 

- In the second edition of Bowyer s Conjectures on the New 
Testament, 4to, 1784, there is a note of some length on the 
passage, which shows that the opinions of the learned printer 
were unfavorable to its authority. All the reasons which he 
assigns are adduced at greater length by one or other of the 
writers in the controversy, and therefore do not require to be 
distinctly noticed. 

We now come to the grand controversy on this important 

passage,- which <»nginated in the following paragraph in 

<}ibbon's " History of the Decline and Fall of the Eoman 

JElmpire*" Speaking of the Catholic frauds, he says, " The 

« Beiisoii*s Paraphrase, Vol. II. pp. 644-646, 2d edit. 



dbyGoogk 



46 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7- 

tnemorable tezi vrhteh aBserts* Hie woaij «f the thrsb w1m> 
bear witness m hearen, is eondemned bj the imiTM^ n* 
lence of the orthodox fiMiiers, ftnaent versicHis, asd aathen^- 
tic MSS. It was first (Jleged hj the Cath<^ Bishc^ wham 
Himiieric snmmooed to the Conference ef Carthage. An al- 
legorical interpretaf^OB, in the form, perhaps, of a margmal 
note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles, which were re- 
newed and ooirected in a dark period of ten centuries. Alter 
the invention of piinting, ihe editors of the Greek Testa- 
ment yielded to their ewn prejudices, or those of the times ; 
and the pious fraud, which was embraeed with equal seal st 
Borne and 4t Geneva, has been infinitely multiplied in every 
country and every language (tf modem Europe,*! In a note 
to part of this passage, he adds, ^ The three witnesses have 
been estcMisbed in our Greek Testaments by the prudence 
of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Ccmiplutensian edi- 
tors ; the typographical fraud, or errot, of Robert Stephens, 
in the placing a crotchet; and the deliberate falsefaoodi or 
strange misapprehension, at Theodore Beza."* 

On this last sentence volumes of curious and angry contro- 
versy have been written. It shows ^w closely Gibbon had 
looked into the matter, while the choice of his epithets »t 
once illustrates his knowledge of the sul^ject, and the deli^ 
he took in reproaching the professors of Christianity. The 
infidelity of the writer Is ill-disguised in the i^died amb^ 
guity of his {^raseology, which insixiuates that the doetrine 
of the Trinity is established by worldly pmdenee, bigotry, 
fraud, or misapprehension. He well knew that this was not 
the ease. But that prejudiced enemy to Christianity was 
ever regardless of decency and justice, where its claims and 
its diaracter were concerned. *^ He oftea makes, when he 
cannot readily find, an occasion to insult our religion, w^iioh 
* Rom. Emp., Ch. XXXVH. Vol. VI. pp. 291 -Sd8, Ed. 1807. 



dbyGoOgk 



TRAVIS. 49 

he hates so con£aM;f, tHat be m^fart ts6em to tew6ng6 §ot3a6 
personal injury. Such is his eagerness in the Sftose^ that he 
)MoOp^ to the most despies^^ put^ or to ^e most awkward 
perrerskm ^ language^ for ihe pleasare of turning the Scrip- 
turd int6 ribaldry, or of calling Jesus an impostor/'* 

* Had ^^ DecMne and Fall of the Roman Empire, however, 
oontained nothing m<H« h^^mious to the doctrine or revela- 
^D of the Scr^tores, thk Statement, and the insinuation 
implied ih it, might have been allowed to |>ass. Like- many 
ethei things of a similar nature^ it would have silently floated 
down the currest of time, and woald »ck>n have been lost in 
ihat ol^viofi to w^ch all accusations gainst the Word of 
God are doomed. But, unfortunately, Gibbon had a name, 

- and his Works enjoyed celebrity. It Was the £ftshion of the 
day to v^rite apologies f(»r the Bible; aad some m^n who 
woidd never have risen to public notice otherwise, endeavored 
to write themselves into ^une or preferment by attacking the 

AaMel lustorian. 

In an evil hour, aAd prompted by some eVil genius, the 
mev^ GeoiTge Ti^vis, Archdeacon of Chester, took up his 
pen, to defend, not the doctrine of the Trinity, but the testi* 
fiionj ci the heavenly witnesses, against the changes pre^ 
fbnred In the above passive. He addressed three letters to 
Mr. Gibbon on this subject^ in the €rentleman*s Magazine for 
17^2. These he reprinted separately, along witii two more, 
m a quarto volume, in I784» In 1786, they appeared again 
^ith addiOons. la the Same Magazke for 1788 and 1789, 
Professor Person replied to Travis. In 17^, Travis wrote 
Mndtber letter on the subject, in the same Magazine, to which 
^Porson replied in the lowing month* And in 1794, the 
A^rdideaeoii published the Whole^ in a lsurg6 octavo vcdume. 

• tblm&*s Letters to TMtvis, PMf., pp. sExtiii., ittix. 
3 B 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



50 CONTROVEBSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

This is the best edition, and whidi has been considted in 
writing these observations. 

In these letters, it is the object of the writer to defend 
Erasmus, the Gomplutensian editors, Beza, and Stephens, 
against Mri Gibbon's charges; to maintain the authenticity 
of the disputed passage ; to reply seriatim to the leading 
writeifl who had disputed it ; and to account for its omission 
from so many MSS. and versions. That Travis undertook 
a herculean task is very evident ; that he sunk under it, can 
exdte no surprise. What he wanted in argument he made 
up by boldness ; and contrived to maintain an appearance of 
truth and victory, by carefully avoiding to meet his enemy in 
the face. 

He succeeds in defending the first editors of the Greek 
New Testament against the base insinuations of Gibbcm; 
for though the cause must be given against Mr. Archdeaccm 
Travis, no one wiU concede to the historian of the Roman 
Empire, that the learned editors were bigots, hypocrites, or 
fools. But when, from defending their character, he pro- 
ceeds to defend their text, the ground becomes very difierent, 
and the tactics entirely of another^ order. Instead of pursu- 
ing a straightforward course, in order to reach his point, he 
is obliged to follow one the most indirect and circuitous. In 
place of beginning at the beginning, he begins at the end. 
He commences with the writers and authorities next to tbe 
period of the Reformation, and endeavors to trace the stream 
up to the fountain head. Instead of the evidence becoming 
clearer and stronger, however, it becomes the feebler and 
more obscure the longer he pursues it ; till, at last, notwiHi- 
standing his perpetual mistakes and misstatements, it iis left 
in uncertainty and darkness. His account of the testimony 
of the writers whom he quotes in support of the passage is, 
m many instances, not to be depended on, as it is often quoted 



dbyGoogk 



TRAVIS. 51 

at second-hand, or some circumstance is left oat of view, whidi, 
when understood, either in a great measure or entirely sub- 
T€xi& it. His account of the MSS. of Valla and Stepkens is 
altogether erroneous ; and the impression which he labors to 
produce, that a great number of Greek and Latm MSS. con- 
tain the verse,'^is directly the reverse of the truth. 

He makes a show, for it i& often little better, of replying 
ixi jifly-five arguments or objections (tf Dr. Benson; and pro- 
nounces that his Dissertation, ^for intrepidity of assertion, 
disingenuousness of quotation, and defectiveness of conclu- 
sion, has no equal, stands aloof beyond all parallel — as far 
as his reading extends — either in ancient or in modem 
times." This is something like the ass kicking the dead 
lion ; but which, as we shall find, was destined to receive no 
ordinary correction; The chm'acter given to Dr. Benson's 
work, in the opinion of Porson, more properly belongs to the 
production of Travis. In the same manner, he professes to 
meet fifty-one arguments of Sir Ikuic Newton ; whose argu- 
ments were not more powerful than Benson's, but who is 
treated with more courtesy than the Presbyterian divine. 
Griesbach and Bowyer are dispatched in a very few pages, 
and not more satisfactorily than the former. 

In short. Archdeacon Travis, though a very respectable 
clergyman, and an able " tythe-lawyer," was altc^ether dis- 
qualified by his prejudices, his ignorauce, and his injudicious- 
ness, from rendering any important service to the cause of 
theological literature, in this important controversy. His 
own summing up, in the following passage, will show the 
nature of many of his proofs, or rather assumptions, and the 
high tone of confidence with which he claims the victory. 

*'The result, then, from the whole is, — that Temi verse in 
questicm seems, beyond all degree of serious doubt, 
yo HAVE stood in this epistle when it originally 



d by Google 



5% CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

FROOeSDED FBOK THE PBK OF Sx. JOBK.* In the Ladiiy 
or Western Church, the suffrages of Tertullian and Cyprian, 
of Marcus Celedensis and Phasbadius, in its &T(H*y aided l^ 
the early, the solemn, the public appeal to its auUiority by 
the African Bishops nnd^ Hnneric ; the Preface, Bible, and 
conscripta Jidm of Jerome; the frequent and direct citations 
of the verse by Eucheriu^ Fu^entius, Vigilius, and Cassi- 
odorins: — these, supported as to the Greek, or Eastern 
Churches, by tiie Dialogue imputed to Arius and Athanastus, 
as well as by the Sync^is of this Epistle ; by the Armenian 
Versfott, which was framed from Greek MSS. ; by the very 
eariy and constant use of the miro^oKot in the same Greek 
Church, (an usage whidi seems to be deducible even from 
the Apostles themselves,) and by its public Confession of 
Fai^ : — all these evidences, arising within the limit of the 
sixth century (to pass over the immense accumulation of 
testimony which has been produced subsequent to that era)t 
offering themsdves to the test of the judgment, combined in 
one point oi view, unchecked by a single negati(», unre^ 
buked by any positive contradiction, unresisted by any the 
smallest direct impeachment of the authenticity of the verse, 
throughout aU the annals of all antiquity: — all thes£ cir- 
cumstances seize the mind as it were by violence, and com- 
pel it to acknowledge die verity, the original existence of the 
verse in question. For although it undoubtedly appears 
strange, on a i&rst consideration of the subject, that several 
ancient Greek and Latin Fathers have not quoted, or com- 
mented upon this versoy in those jparts of their works which 
have descended to the present age ; although it appears, on 
a primary view, still more strange, that those numerous 
Greek M8& (not Latin, for a vast majority of these have 
oTie^ys read the verse,) which formerly exhibited this pas- 

* The capitals arc Travis's. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



TSAYIS. §9 

sage of St. John, shoald be now in general (not totally) lost, 
rather than those few which did not contain it: yet both 
tliese objectiona, when aggravated to the utmost, are but pre^ 
mtrnptions, amount to no more than negative evidence ; and 
they have been already, ae it should seem, completely and 
satisfactorily explained and avoided, or accounted for and 
defeated. And from whetfaersoever of the sources, which 
have been heretof(»e assigned, the partial occultation of this 
verse, antecedent to the times of Jerome, proceeded, that 
temporary obscuration was dispersed at once, asid the verse 
was summoned fbrtb to shine in its proper sphere, by his 
Prefhce and Version; which are confirmed and established 
(if they could be said to need any confirmation or establish- 
ment) by the revision of Alcninus under the direction of 
Charlemagne. And this verse hath eyeb sinob (if we may 
now descend to modem times) not only maintained its place 
Sn every public version which hath been in use since the days 
of Jerome; but it hath also been ever since unifwmly quoted, 
and referred to by individual writers of the first eminence for 
learning and Integrity, in Asia and in Africa, as weU as in 
Europe, without the least question, without the smallest in- 
terruption, EXCEPT the invasion of Erasmus, which, however, 
was soon repelled, and of which he frequently repented and 
was ashamed, unless his own paraphrase on this verse, and 
his Ratio Vera TkeologidB^ be the coropletest pieces of liter- 
ary hypocrisy now subsisting ; — and, except the assaults of 
some more modem objectors, which, nevertheless, it is hoped 
and trusted, have been repulsed in the preceding Disserta- 
tion, in a manner, although unequal to the subject, yet suf- 
ficiently adequate to the serious conviction of every unpreju- 
diced inquirer after tmth." * 

Inaccurate and. unsatisfactory to scholars as were the Let- 

• Pages 455 -459. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



54 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

ters of Travis, they produced, when published, a considera- 
ble impression. "Nor is it difficult to account for their 
success. The insidious speculations on religion, which dis- 
tinguished the History of the Decline and Fall of the Ro- 
man Empire, made that work an object of intense interest to 
the literary public. The principles avowed in the first vol- 
ume called forth adversaries in abundance; and the author, 
notwithstanding his cool and philosophical temperament, was 
at last instigated to take up arms in his own defence. Hos- 
tilities agamst the first volume had scarcely begun to abate, 
when the publication of the second and third furnished 
grounds for jiew engagements. Mr. Travis very adroitly 
availed himself of the opportunity that was presented, and 
thus obtained a degree of consequence as the opponent of 
Mr. Gibbon, which he could not have obtained as the mere 
advocate of the controverted text. There was besides, in the 
mode of conducting his attack, much that was very likely to 
impose upon the generality of mankind. He proclaimed him- 
self the champion of the great cause of orthodoxy ; assumed 
the boldest and most uncompromising language ; represented 
the early friends of the verse as having sustained the most 
flagrant injuries from the hand of the historian ; and called 
upon the offender * to traverse or to acknowledge, — to resist 
or to submit' With regard to the composition of his work, 
his expression was pointed; his style, as Dr. Hey thought, 
was ' spirited and eloquent,' — although, in the opinion of a 
severer judge, too frequently gorgeous and declamatory ; and 
his sentiments seemed to indicate a high tone of moral and 
religious feeling. The effect of all this was, that not being 
in the least scrupulous about his premises, — but plausible in 
his reasonings, and confident in his conclusions, — he left, I 
have no doubt, an impression on many minds, that uncom- 
mon abilities and acquirements had, in his own perscui, been 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



TBAVIS. 65 

Gonsdentioasly emjdoyed in the vindication of truth. His 
work, indeed, abounded in errors ; but in errors obvious, for 
the most part, only to those who were tolerably versed. in 
Scripture criticism, ^hen, for instance, Mr. Travis asserted 
that ' the Latin MSS. had universally the concluding clause 
of the eighth verse,' and that * the words i¥ tJ yg were omit- 
ted in very few of the Greek MSS.,' how small a portion of 
his readers would be aware that these assertions were in di- 
rect opposition to matter of fact I 

'* Assertions, moreover, can seldom be verified without 
some trouble ; and even well-informed persons, who possess 
the means of investigation, are too often disposed to rely 
upon an author's accuracy, to admit his statements, and go 
on to his inferences, rather than to examine the positions 
which are successively presented, for the purpose of ascer- 
taining their real strength and bearings. On the whole, then, 
there is no reason to wonder at the temporary popularity 
which attended the Letters to Mr. Gibbon." * 

From the extract and summary I have given, the reader 
may form a tolerably correct idea of the argumentation and 
•manner of Archdeacon Travis. Never was an unfortunate 
author doomed to pass such an ordeal, or to endure such a 
flagellation as that which he was destined to undergo at the 
hands of Professor Porson. His Letters to Travis first ap- 
peared in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1788 and 1790. 
And in the last of these years, they were all republished, to 
the numjber of twelve, in an 8vo volume, entitled, " Letters 
^to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,' in answer to his Defence of the 
-Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7."t 
. To speak of the learning, the talents, and the wit of Por- 

♦ Crito Cantab., pp. 336 - 883. 

t (Ponon^s Letters to Travis, now a soaFoe book, jirert reprinted in the 
..Oassical Joamal, Vols. IXXVI. - XXXIX. - Ed.] 



dbyGoOgk 



M CONTROVERSY RC8P£CTIN6 1 JOHN V. 7. 

•on in tfaiB place, would be a work of snpftron^ation. He 
was, by universal suffri^, the most distinguished Grecian 
of his time, and not less celebrated for his powers of satire 
and invectiTe, (unhappily too frequently exercised,) than for 
his knowledge of Greek literature. For the talents and ac- 
quisitions o( his opponent, he entertained the most profound 
contempt ; and for Porson to entertain an opinion, and to ex- 
press it in all its strength, was a thing of couree. Th6 bear- 
ing of the dispute on any doctrine of Revelation was to him 
a matter of perfect indifference. How far, therefore, the 
doctrine of the Trinity might be affected by the discussion, 
he cared nothing. He approached the controversy with the 
reckless feelings of a giant called to crush a pygmy, and at 
once rushed into the thickest of the battle, regardless of 
everything but the accomplishment of his purpose, ^^ the de- 
struction c^ his adversary, and the expulsion from the sacred 
text of the long ctisputed passage. Justice requires that it 
should be said, that sddom has a more unsanctified temper 
been displayed in a religious discussion, than that which Por- 
son evinced in these Letters. The defence of tnith, or Chria- 
tianity, is not to be desired under such circumstances. ^ 
that while our opinion coincides with that of the learned, but, 
alas 1 the unhappy Porson, we d^lore that one of the ablest 
pieces of criticism and argument in our language should be 
the production of one whom no Christian can cegard a8.«n 
auxiliary or a friend. But it is not my business to expose 
the ashes of the mighty dead, farther than to deprecate the 
unhallowed association of impiety with a professed regard to 
truth and to the Scriptures. 

Though Porson was not a man of serious piety, it is proper 
it should be stated, that he was not a Socinian. He evidently 
cared nothing about the matter ; but his understanding was 
decidedly in favor of the orthodox creed on the subject of 



dbyGoogk 



PORSON. 57 

the Triuity. A fHend once asked him what lie thought of 
the evidence afforded by the New Testament in favor of the 
Socinian doctrines. His answer was short and decisive, — 
*'Jf the New Testament is to determine the question, the 
Socinians are wrong/' * 

In these celebrated letters, Pcnrson discusees Travis's rep- 
resentations of Valla's Greek MSS., which he supposed con- 
tain^ the disputed verse, but whose collation is shown to 
contain no reference to it, — his defence of the Comphiten- 
sian Edition, which is proved to be unsatisfkctopy and futile, 
— his account of the MSS. used l)y Robert Stephens and 
Beza, which is exhibited as full oi 

" Phantoms bodiless and Tahi, 
Empty visions of the brain/* — 

Eis representation of the MSS. supposed to be seen by the 
Lou vain divines, and of the Dublin and Berlin copies, and 
his eaumeration of all the Greek MSS. that omit the verse, 
which are proved to be not leas incorrect and fallacious, — 
his account of the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac and Coptic, the 
Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic Versions, all of 
which are shown to be adverse to the authenticity of the wit- 
nesses, — and his representations of the Greek and Latin 
writers who have quoted the verse, and of those who, though 
they had sufficient occasion, have not quoted it 

These topics must be regarded«as embracing every materi- 
al point in this interesting and extended discussion. Porsoo 
fiiUy states, and fairly meets every objection to his argument, 
which is most triumphantly maintained from the beginning 
to the end of the volume. He writes like a man who felt 
convinced of truth and assured of victory. He is often im- 
measurably severe, to which he appears to have ];)een pro- 
voked by the ignorance and confidence of his antagonist. 

» Qnarteriy Reyiew, Vol. XXXHI. p. 9d. 
3* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



68 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

It is very singular that Travis never, took notice of Por- 
son's attack. It is impossible that he should not have known 
it, and equally impossible that he should not have felt it ; but 
whether he wished his sileQce to be construed into contempt 
for the character or "hatred of the talents of his adversary, 
cannot now be determined. Be this as it may, it is scarcely 
possible not to feel satisfaction in the success of Porson's ef- 
forts, or not to admire the undaunted firmness with which he 
meets every argument and every objection; together with 
his disregard of personal consequences, and his contempt 
for everything like cidcane and- subterfuge. The following, 
which is one of the concluding paragraphs of these letters, 
and which is supported by all the preceding reasonings of 
the volume, so fully determines the controversy, that unless 
it can be jpaet and overthrown, all attempts at supporting the 
verse must be abortive. 

** If this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its ab- 
sence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two ; one of 
which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and 
the other transcribes it from a printed book ; notwithstand- 
ing its absence from all the Versions except the Vulgate, and 
even from many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate ; 
notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek 
writers down to the thirteenth and most of the Latins down 
to the middle of the eigbth^century ; — if, in spite of all these 
objections, it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever 
can be proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has 
been permitted, for many centuries, miraculously to banish 
the finest passage in the New Testament from the eyes and 
memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and 
transcribers." ♦ 

The general style in which Person conducts the contro* 
versy is fairly exhibited in the following passage : — 

* P. 408. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



POBSON. 59 

^ Let us then inquire into the Greek MSS. supposed to 
contain the disputed verse. You, sir, reckon up seven be- 

.lopging to Valla, one to Erasmus, some (you are so n^odest 
you will not say, p. 280, how many) to the^ Complutensian 
editors, sixteen to Eobert Stephens, and some that the Lou- 
vain divines had seen. You afterwards make, pp. 282 -285, 
a very pretty calculation, (for you are an excellent arithme- 
tician,) and find that t thirty-one [MSS.] out of eighty-one, or 
(more than) three out of eighty or (nearly) one half of that 

. whole number, actually did exhibit, or do exhibit, the verse, 
1 John V. 7 1 ' Inquisitive people will say, how happens it 
that* none of these MSS. now remain, except the Dublin 
copy, which Wetstein is so cruel .as to attribute to the six- 
teenth century ; for concerning the Berlin MS. they will, I 
fear, rather choose to believe Xa, Croze and Griesbach, than 
Martin and Mr. Travis. But the answer is. easy. They are 

Jost. Either they have been burned, or have been eaten by 
the worms, or been gnawed in pieces by the rats, or been 
Totted with the damps, or been destroyed by those pestilent 
fellows the Arians ; which waB very feasible ; for they had 
only to get into tlieir pawer all the MSS. of the New^Testa- 
ment in the world, and to mutilate or destroy those which 
contained un des plus heavx passages dans VEcriture Sainte, 
Or, if all these possibiliUes should fail, the Devil may play his 
part in the drama to great advantage. For it is a fact of 
which BezsLpositiveiy assures us, that the Devil has been tam- 
pering with the text, 1 Tim. iii. 16; and that Erasmus lent 
Jbim an helpix^ hand. Beza, indeed, being a man brimful of 
4^jQdor, suljoins, that he believes Erasmus assisted Satan 
^unwittingly. This, pei^japs, may be some excuse for Eras- 
mus; but what hopes of salvation are left for your Wet- 
steins, your Griesbachs, your Sosipaters, who have the front 
to persist in their damnable errors ; the two firsts in spite of 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



1 



90 CONTROVEBSY RB8PX0TIK6 1 JOHN V. 7. 

350 pfige9 (tf Berriiiuw ; fcho other, in spite of 400 of Mr. 
Tn^Tis, Aflor all, I rather prefer the Buppoaition, that the 
Ariaofi destroyed the said MSS., heoause it shows the ortho- 
dox in so superior a light ; who have not, to my knowledge^ 
at leasts destroyed a single MS. that omitted their daifing 
text, while the Ar ians, m less than a» eentory and m half, 
suppressed thirty that contained it Yet let xa hear -what 
may he said in their fiivor ; not out of tendemeat to t^em 
(they deserve no m^x^y), but merely for oar own justifica- 
tion."* 

<' These letters to Archdeaeon Travta," to use /die words 
of an able critic, ^^ form a masterpiece of literary iBTestiga- 
tion. They disooTor a power of disorinuBation to which, 
perhaps, a parallel can be found only in the woi^ of Bent- 
lej, A few inaerairaciea may be detected, and a few expres- 
sions brought together inconsistent with each other ; but the 
deoiaioQs with wbi(^ die volume abounds, are founded on 
prindples which insure their stability. Mr. Porson -^ ' wii 
aqutis virtuti atqua efu^ <mici$ '•^ never eonceala hia abhor- 
rence of disingenuous dealing in anything, but more espe- 
cially in matters of religion; and he does hot scs^uple to call 
sudi instances of it as occur to biift in bis inquiry, by their 
vulgar names." f 

Sosipater, referred to in the above quotation from Ponson^ 
letters, was a writer in a work entitled '^ Commentaries and 
Essays, published by the So<^ty for promoting the Knowl- 
edge of the Scriptures." The first volume of this woi^k ap- 
peared without date, shortly after the publicaUon of Travis^ 
letters, f^ld contains a paper by Sosipater, designated, ^A 
Gleaning qf I^marks on Mr. Travis's Attempt to revive 
the exploded Text of 1 John v. 7." Its contents correspond 

• Letters to Travis, pp. 22 - 24. 

t Q^ar^rly Review, Vol. XXXIU. p. 99, 



dbyGoOgk 



STEPBEXiS. 01 

with the descriptloo, as they are literallj gleaniDgs, or short 
obflervations on Emljn and Martin, and pardcnlarlj the mis- 
takee of Travis, with some extracts from Wetatein and Gries- 
badi. He oondudes hj saying, ^ I hope I sbfdl be exoiued 
in adding -at the dose of these remarks on the very exUraor- 
^oary defbnoe of thisytis^ exploded text, that a more com- 
plete pattnm of sophistical reasonmg throi^hout, and of boH 
ftfserti^i without proo^ I nerer met with, and that if my 
voice could extend itself to Mr. QibboCi, in his distant abode 
on the li^e Lemon ; to whom, it may be presumed, a series 
<^ letters addressed to him have been communicated; I would 
^itreat that gentlequui not to judge of his opponents, and of 
all the defendeiB of Chrktianity, by this its jHieaeBt champion 
and adTooate, Mr. TraTi^.'' 

The work in which this paper appeared exteiided only to 
two volumes. I believe Dr. Disney was the ocmductor of it ; 
and the writers wer^ mostly, if not entirely. Unitarians. So- 
eipater was the late Theophilus Lindsey, who wrote a con- 
nderal^ number of papers under that signature. 

One ef the leading points m this discussion relates to the 
readings of the Greek MBS. employed by Bobert Stephens, 
in the construction of the text of his celebrated edition of 
the New Testament, and to the placing of the crotchet re- 
ferred to by Mr* Gibbon. From the complicated nature of 
this controversy, Mid the numerous minute points whidi it 
involves, it is very difficult to give an abridged view of this 
part of the argument It appears that of the sixteen codi- 
ces, including the Complutensian, used by Stephens, only 
seven contained the Catholic Epistles ; consequently no more 
^^ould be empk^ed in his collation of the disputed verse. In 
his text he shows the number of words omitted in any of his 
MS&., by prefixing an obelus f before the fii^ word, and a 



dbyGoogk 



62 eONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

little crotchet ), or semicircle, after thQ last word. In the 
disputed text, he places his obelus and crotchet as under: 
i €P Tf ovpcoff) 6 frarfip, 6 X&yo£y K.rX. By which he appears to 
intimate that not the whc^e verse, but only the words cf rf 
ovpav^ were omitted in his seven MSS. Whether the placing 
of the crotchet in this position, instead of the end of the 
verse, was by design^ or a mistake <^ Stephens, or his com- 
positor, it is impossible now to ascertain. The latter is by 
&r the more probable supposition. 

The friends of the disputed passage, among whom must 
be ranked, in particular, Mr. Travis, consider it as most evi- 
dent, that the MSS. employed by Stephen contained the 
passage, and every possible effort has been made to maintain 
this ground. It is clear, however, that if the Stephenic MSS. 
remain, and can be identified, they must furnish the most 
conclusive proof of the actual reading. And as Stephens 
refers to all the seven by one indicatioft, should even one of 
the seven be found and that not contain the passage, it would 
be conclusive against the whole. It happens that no Greek 
MS., at present known, omits only the three words to which 
the notation of the Stephenic text is limited. Four of the 
seven MSS. employed by Stephens on the Catholic Epistles 
were borrowed from the Hoyal Library at Paris, and re- 
turned afler being used. It was found by Sinaon, more than 
a hundred years ago, that not a single MS. in the Royal Li- 
brary at Paris contained the disputed text. And as four of 
Stephens's seven were included in those MSS., though which 
four had not been ascertained^ little doubt could be enter- 
tained of Stephens's mistake. 

Le Long, in 1720, undertook to ascertaui the four very 
MSS. belonging to the Royal Library used by Stephens. 
He succeeded in identifying them ; and found they omitted 
the whole verse. From this period Stephens's semfcirole 



dbyGoogk 



MABSH. ' 63 

was abandoned to its fate, till Archdeacon Travis took a 
journey to Paris, in 1791, with a view to recollate the MSS. 
on whidi Le Long had fixed, as the seven which were used 
bj Stephens. The effect of his examination was a full con- 
^ence on his part that Le- Long had been mistaken in the 
MSS., that the crotchet stands in the proper place in the text 
of Stephens, and " that the calumniated mwnory of Stephens 
would be redeemed to its aocient honors." But all this is no 
better than idle vaunting, for Travis only proved himself to 
be totally unfit for the task of examining and collating Greek 
MSS., as no doubt can be entertained of the identity of the 
MSS. in question. 

Four of the seven MSS. used by Stephens, containing the 
Catholic EpistleS) and referred to by the mistaken placing of 
his crotchet, as if they read the disputed verse, being thus 
ascertained, and found not to contain it ; during the interval 
of 1791 and 179^, when Travis's last edition of his letters 
appeared, Mr., now Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, 
thought he discovered another of those MSS. in the Library 
of the University of Cambridge. And in the year 1793, in 
a note to the second volume of hia Translation of Michaelis's 
Introduction to the New Testament, he intimated this discov- 
ery. This MS. had once belonged to Vatablus, the Mend 
of Stephens, and perfectly corresponds with the Codex Ste- 
phani gy. This MS. also omits the whole of the disputed 
verse; and thus five of Stephens's seven MSS., containing 
the Catholic Epistles, have been discovered, and are found to 
want the passage. The two other MSS. have not yet, I be- 
lieve, been found, but the question, as to all the MSS., must 
be regarded as settled. 

This note of Dr. Marsh, Travis attacked in the last edition 
of his Letters to Gibbon. The following is the passage : — 

"In addition to these adversaries, the learned tnmslator 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



64 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

of MicfaaeHs baa lately Infonned the worlds ^kM the MS. 
distinguished by the letters cy by B. Stephens, is sow in the 
Library (^ the University of Cambridge, is there marked 
Kk: 6. 4, aad that it ecmtains the Epistle of 6t John, but Bot 
the YOfse, 1 John v. 7. His argument on this subject may 
be reduced to the foUowiag beads. 

" 1. TIm readings which R. Stephens has produced from 
the MS. ty alone, thzoogbout ibe Catholic Epistles, amount 
to twenty. 

^2. Tlrase singular readings are aU. found ^without any 
exceptran, and without the least yariation ' in his MS. Kk. 

^ 3. Several of these singular readings have been discov- 
ered in no MS. whatever since the days of R Stephens. 

^4. This exUiaordmary coinoideooe, united with the cir- 
comstance that the MS. Kk has the name of a contemporary, 
aud a friend of B. Stephens in it, affords the strongest proc^ 
that the MS. bow in question, and the MS. iy of B. Stephens) 
are one and the same book ; and therefcn^e, 

^ 5. The semicircle of B. Stephens is misplaced. 

^ The observations on this argument, fbutfdecl on an exam* 
ination of the Catholic Epistles in this MS. Kk, shaH follow 
the order in which the several parts of that argument are 
here arranged. 

'* 1. On referring* to the margin of B. St^hens, it wiH Bp- 
pear that he has quoted his MS. vy solely not merely in 
twenty, but in twenty-five places.. 

'^ 2. One of these singular readings, whidi is not found in 
the MS. Kk, is in James v. 7, in which passi^ this iso/pj 
reads €<iog \<iffrf Kopnov vpoufuof kxu o^c/*ov. But t^e MS. cy 
reads the passage thus, cy t»s a» \affri irpMfMw «eai o^fuw, with- 
out Mpvov or any other substantive. This may, perhaps, be 
one of those five passages which Mr. Marsh did not reckon. 
It repders his whole argument ineffective, although the other 



dbyGoogk 



(wenty«fo«r liogoUr iteadinga ahoald be («b on examinatioii 
they appear to be) in the MS« Kk. 

^' 3. Ad to the aaserdoa that sev^ml of these mogular read- 
ifigs have been <li800vered in no MS. whatever since the dajs 
* of it. Stephens, it will a^^pear, on consulting the Tarioas read- 
ings collected bj Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, that the case 
etands tbu9, or neady thua. Of the tw^ity-fonr singular 
readings in whidi the MS. try and Kk agree, twelre have 
been discovered in other Greek MSS., six more have been 
fo^nd in some &f the ddest versions, and one more in Cyril 
of Alexandria ; so that there are only five singular readings 
which have not yet been found any where except in the 
MSS. Kk and iy. 

^' 4. Mr. Marsh info's from this extraordinary ooinddenoe, 
(a coincidence of twelve readings,) and from the word Vata- 
Uoe being wjdtt^ in the MS* Kk, that it most be the MS. ly 
<^ B. Stephens. It will instantly appear how insignifioant 
the latter circumstance is. And with regard to the former, 
if it be a jnst inference that two MSS. are the same because 
they »gn^ in a eertain aumb^ of passages, where they devi- 
ate fiom all other copies ; it is surely reasonable to eonclude, 
th^t ii («ie «f two given MSS. shall disagree, not only widi 
the other, but also with the rest of the MSS. which have 
hitbeirto been ooUaled, in a fior gveatsr number of passages, 
they most be two diffiartfit MSS. 

^In the MS. Kk, there are in all 135 devia^na from the 
teiLt of £. Stqriiens, eadi of them not less important than 
those which he has produced from his MS. ly. In his mar- 
gin the MS. ^y is quoted only 60 times. There are in the 
MS. Kk, therefore, 7d more various readings than B. Ste- 
vens has prodneed from ^e MS. ly. 

'^ Among the 135 readings, just mentioned, there are 42 
which are not to be met with, either in the margin of B. 

a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



66 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Stephens, or in the various readings of Mill, of Wetstein, or 
of Griesbach ; that is, there are 42 passages wherein the MS. 
Kk differs, not oply from the MS. ly, (as the fair presumption 
is,) but from every other known MS* But there are twelve 
.places alone in which the MS. cy is known to agree with the 
MS. Kk, and to differ from every other copy. From all 
which facts and circumstances taken together, it appears 
most probable that the copies now in question are two differ- 
ent MSS. And therefore that 

'* 5. Mr^ Marsh's argument does not shew that the semi- 
circle of R. Stephens is misplaced. 

*' It will not be too strong an observation to remark, that 
such accusations tarnish not his well-earned honors. They 
prove nothing — but the precipitancy of his accusers." * 

It was in defence of his note, therefore, and in farther sup- 
port of his own views, and those of Michaelis,t on 1 John v. 
7, that this learned writer published at Leipsic, where he was 
then residing, the following able volume; "Letters to Mr. 
Archdeacon Travis, in Vindication of one of the Translator's 
Notes to Michaelis's Introduction, and in confirmation of the 
opinion that a Greek MS. now preserved in the Public Li- 
brary of the University of Cambridge, is one of the seven 
which are quoted^ by R. Stephens, at 1 John v. 7. With an 
Appendix, containing a Review of Mr. Travis's CoUaticm of 
the Greek MSS. which he examined in Paris ; an Extract 
from Mr. Pappelbaum's Treatise on the Berlin MS.; and 

* Travis's Letters, pp. 410-414. 

t Mr. Butler, by mistake, represents Michaells as at first an advocate 
for the disputed verse, and refers to a book, by him, on that side of the 
question, and to another also in opposition to it — Horse Biblicse, Vol. L p. 
879. What he affirms of Michaelis, belongs to Semler, who changed his 
views, and wrote both the works which Mr. Butler ascribes to Michaelis.— 
See Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. VL p. 418. 



dbyGoOgk 



MARSH. 67 

&n Essay on the Origin and Object of the Velesian Bead* 
ings.'* 8vo. 1795. 

These letters, seven in number, with the appendices, sup- 
plied everything that was wanting to complete the discomfit- 
ure and disgrace of .the unfortunate Archdeacon. They de- 
prive him not only of every shadow of argument, but clearly 
prove that he resorted to artifice to support the cause he had 
rashly undertaken to defend. It is impossible to convey an 
idea of the labor, research, and learning, which this admira- 
ble volume displays. It is worth being consulted as an ex- 
ercise of the -understanding, and of being referred to as a 
specimen of the most admirably sustained argumentation. 
'The main positions are established by a superfluity of proof, 
60 that the reader has no option but to adopt the conclusion 
respecting the identity of the MSS., the misplacing of the 
crotchet, and consequently that none of the MSS. used by 
* Stephens really contained this passage. On every point, in- 
deed, involved in this discussion, much curious and accurate 
information is communicated, so that the reader will find it 
one of the most valuable works fn the whole range of bibli- 
cal criticism. One of the most curious applications of math- 
ematical science to moral evidence is ccHitained in this work. 
By the application of a mathematical theorem, in the fourth 
letter, to the documents produced in the second and fifth let- 
ters, the learned writer endeavors to show that the probability 
in favor of the MS. Kk. 6. 4, in the University of Cambridge, 
being one of the MSS. collated by Stephens, is, to the prob- 
abilitv of the contrary, as two nonillions to unity. This he 
conceives, if the calculation be correct, every one will con- 
sider as amounting to a moral certainty. 

Various opinions may be entertained respecting the pro- 
priety of applying mathematical science to such subjects; 
and also respecting the perfect accuracy of the algebraic for- . 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



68 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

oaiila cm which he reasons ; but only oae c^nion can exist 
respecting the point to which it is applied. Dr. Marsh's ao> 
count of the steps by which he was ted to the result at wfai<^ 
he finally arrived, is singularly interesting and though l<mg> 
as it afibrds a beautiful specimen of critical caution and uca& 
men, and as the volume is now scarcely to be procured at aay 
price, the reader, I am sure, will be pleased to be fiu^ished 
with it 

^'In the begmning of the year 1793, while I was printing 
my Notes to the seeood Tolume of Michaelis's Introduction, 
I examined the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, pre- 
served in the University library, of which I had made |i 
catalogue in the preceding summer. My attention was por- 
ticulariy engaged by that which was marked KL 6. 4>.: fl 
manuscript containing the Acts of the Apostles, with the 
Catholic Bpistles, and those of St PauL I found, on exfua- 
ination, that it bore the appearance of a very respectable «8^ 
tiquity, that its readings were in numerous exaniples differ^ 
ent from the common printed text, where the deviations were 
supported by very few other authorities, and I was surprised 
that so remariiable a manuscript should, as I at that xlxm 
supposed, have remained unoollated. Considering, however, 
that manuscripta, after die death of their proprietors, «re fre^- 
quently transferred to different libraries, ai^ sometime even 
to distant countries, J. thought it not in^robable that this 
manuBcri{^ though never quoted as a Codex Cantabrigiensis, 
might have been collate^ and quoted by a diffeiwnt name btr 
fore it was purchased for the University library, in the same 
manner as the Codex Augiensis, now in Trinity College, was 
in the beginning of this century collated by Wetstein, in the 
library of Mr. Mieg at Heidelberg. And that ^e very same 
thing had really happened to the MS* Kk. 6. 4, 1 was led to 
eonelode by the following cirewistanoes. la the fint idaoe 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



IfABSH. €9 

J dbeerred the iwme of Yatabhui (who was Hebrow Profess 
8Qr in the UniTenifty of Paris, and died about the middle of 
the flixCeesth centarj) written on the innde of the cover, at 
the bcginnhig e£ the manmcript, in a i^ce Vhere the pro- 
prietcNTS of books rery freqnenUjr write their names. The 
same name I saw likewise at the end of the manuscript, and 
observed that in both places the name was written in the 
middle of the page, and in the same hand« I perceived like- 
wide the name of Haatin written at the beginning of the 
manuseript^ in the same page with the name of Yatabliis, bat 
in a difierent hand, and in a different part of the page, name- 
Ij, in one of the npp^ comeni, whidi is likewise a place 
wliere the proprietors of books very frequently write their 
isaraaB. I Conduded tbersfore that tibe manuscr^t had been 
lormerly in France, a&d successively the property of Yata^ 
bhis and Hautin* I paid, however, little attention to the 
name of Haatin : it was that of Yatabius whidi led me to 
ftir^r inqmries, and ^t&t excited the suspidon tliat tlda 
sMiaascript might have been one of those whidi^ wove used 
l^ R Stephens for his editions of the Greek Testament, 
printed in 1546^ 1549, and 1550, because Yatablus was one 
of Eoibert Stephens^s intimate friends, and was h'kewise con-* 
neeted with him in his literary pursuits. Under these circum- 
stances I thoi^ht it impossible that an audent and valual^e 
manoBcript, in the possession of Yatablus, could have been 
unknown to Stephens : and, as he expressly declanes in the 
preface to his edition of 1550, that he procured six manu- 
scripts from various quarters, in addition to the eight bor- 
rowed frt>m the Royal Library (which with the Compluten$«ian 
edition and the manuscript collated in Italy make up the six- 
teen), it appeared to me at least probaUe, that the Codex 
Yatablt was one of the six. Further, this probability was 
greatly increased by the sti*cmg expression which Stephens 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



70 COHTfiOVERST RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

has Qsed in spes^ng of these six manuscripts, for he «tjft 
that they were *ea, qu« undique corrogare liciiit.' The 
word * undique' plainly denotes that he collected fh>m various 
quarters; and the addition of Micuit' is a proof that he col- 
lected at least such as he thought worthy of notice, where he 
was able to procure them. 

^ Having thus considered the probability, that die Codex 
Yatabli had been used by Stej^ns, derived from external 
evidence, I proceeded to inquire what internal evidence might 
be obtained in its favor. For this purpose, it was necessary 
to fix upon some one of Stephens's manuscripts, and compare 
the readings which Stephens had quoted from it, with the 
readings of the Codex Vatabli : and I was led to fix on one 
of the two marked m andcy, in the following manner. I 
considered that if the Codex Vatabli had been used by Ste* 
phens, it must be one of the six 'quse undique corrogare 
licuit ' ; for, independently of the arguments already adduced 
to show that it probably was one of those six, it could neitl^r 
be the Codex a nor /3, for reasons which it would be supers 
fiuous to mention : neither could it be one of the eight man- 
uscripts marked by Stephens, y, d, c, r, C, 17, <, ic, for these 
eight, as he himself declares, were borrowed from the Boyal 
Library. If used at all, therefore, it could be only one of 
the six which Stephens has noted by Bj io, i/3, cy, cd, tr* But 
it could neither be the 6, nor the i/3, nor the td ; for the two 
first of these have been discovered by Wetstein to be the 
same as the Codex Coislinianus 200, and the Codex R^os 
83; and the third has been found by Griesbach to be* the 
Codex Victorinus 774. The number thei'efore of the undiiB^ 
covered Codices Stephanid were reduced to the three madked 
to, *y, tr : but the Codex tr is quoted by Stephens above fifty 
times in f^e Apocalypse, a book which is not contained in the 
Codex VatablL There remained therefore for U'ial only tha 



dbyGoogk 



MARSH. 71 

•a and tlie cy, both of which, as app^uv from the quotations 
in Stephens's margin, contained the very same books as the 
Codex Yatabli, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, the Catho- 
lic Epistles, and those of St Paul. 

^ Having discovered so far, that one of these two manu- 
scripts miffM be the Codex VataWi, I resolved fhrther to 
examine whether either of them. actually were. To this end 
I copied from Stephens's margin, throughout the Catholic 
Epistles, (which I thought a suf^ient p(H:ti(Hi for determin- 
ing the question, without gcnng also through the Acts of the 
Apostles, and the Epistles of St Paul,) all the singular 
readings of the two MSS. la and ty, or, in other words, sudi 
as Stephens had quoted from each of these manuscripts 
solely. Those of the former amounted to twenty, those of 
the latter to twenty-five. Having formed in this manner, 
from Stephens's margin, two separate catalogues of the char- 
acteristic readings of these two manuscripts, I went into the 
PuHie Library to compare them with the Codex Vatabli : 
and in case 1 found that this manuscript contained the whole 
series of characteristic readings, either of the Codex ta, or 
of the Codex ly, — all proper allowances being made for 
typographical errors, from which Stephens's margin is by no 
n^ans free, — • 1 thought I should be justified in concluding 
that I had discovered one of the manuscripts of Robert Ste- 
phens, which had been buried in oblivion since the middle of 
the sixteenth century. The first trial which I made, was 
with the characteristic readings of the Codex m : but I soon 
perceived that this could not be the manuscript, for not one 
of its characteristic readings, as far as I compared, was to be 
found in the Codex Vatabli. . My last resource therefore was 
the Codex *y, and if tl^e internal evidence had there likewise 
been as un£a.vorable as to the Codex la, 1 must have aban- 
doned the opinion that the Codex Yatabli had been used by 



dbyGoogk 



73 CONTROVEBSY RESPEOTIKG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Stephenty noiwiUwlADdiiig tke external evutente in ite fitvofu 
But to mj great Biirprise, atid I aeknowledge (e mj gteai 
8«tlaiaetion, I fbond ia the Codex Yatabli all tbe «i]^iilar 
readings of the Codex ly, throughout tiie Catthdie £^[ri^es| 
whidi is reallj vsot^ th«& I should have expected^ ere* had 
I knofm for eertain before I made the ootnparkon^ that the 
Codex Yatabli was tbe very mannaeript which Stephens de^ 
noted by the mai^ #y, since among twenty^ve ridings in 
Stepheni^s margin, taken any where at a venture^ we may 
IB general expect to find at least one erroc> either of tiie 
collatar, or of the printer. This extraor^nary coineideDMv 
therefore, between the charaeteristie teadmgs of the Codex 
ry and those of the Codex Yatebli, nnited wkh the external 
eyidenee derived from the mamiseript's haying be^i the 
proper^ of one of Stephens's ikitimate frteads, afforded, as I 
thought, and as I still think, a very satisfaetory proof of their 
identity. Further, upon consultiiig the edilions of Mill^ 
Wetstein, and Gnesbadi^ I found, 1st, that of the twentf-fivo 
singular reading of the Codex ty^ no itianuseript at pr^sea^ 
known, beside tiie Codex YataUi, eontaias even a sixth part^ 
2dl7, that if we ecscoept the Codex Alexandrinus^ which contains 
four of them, and four only, there k d6 stn^emanaseripi at 
{present known which contains any two of them > and ddly^ 
that all the manascripts put toother, whieh have bseil eo&H 
ted by Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbaeh (to whom, as I have 
nnce learnt, may be added Matthfii and Alter), contain only 
two ^ths of them. Whether under these (aroumstancefei 1 
rightly concluded, that tf airy ime maDuseript was fouad to 
contain them a//, it coukL be no other than the Tery manu- 
script from whidi they had been taken, or whether the infer- 
eskc& was made with that ' preeipitanegr ' of whieh you have 
thou^t proper to accuse me, I leave to be determined by 
those who are competent judges." * 

• Marshes Letters, pp. 8-9. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



MABSH. 7^ 

The toUhyfrng pa^aiig^ ^ sbw Ws np^8 ^n4 fe^^?Pg9 re- 
specting the moral imd inte]}ectMf^ q|i4i^lit|.e^ pf hi^ ^t^gonist 

" Here I would willingly dose this subject ; but as you, 
jooxsel^ ai» 80 ^xtre^ielj ^ji^^ ^f c^nspfje, eyea in crises 
l^hjBre ypi| pu^t r^her tp applfijifjj ypu mji§t not expect 
to escape, w^iere ce^sufje is justly i\ip. Iph^ expression, 
* shameful debility,' lyl^ch ypu apply ^o f^e Jipng, '^Vetstein, 
and Grie^b^ch, inight l^ rptQrte49 i^ol^ ^"r but fpjir^core fold 
npop yoip»elf ; fpr of «^ft hy,i}4i?e4 ^x^pgpk^ which ypu have 
jH-oduced, pPt ??0-241, ^4 whiclj hpe beeq the fufrject of 
jdu3 preoBdipg inqi^jiy, |;Jip^ ftr^ n^pre th^ji i^ev^n^ which 
are either false, or prove nothing, or prove against yourself. 
When 1 ^nd ypu ^g^ing from Stepheps's sileijce, ^n4 cpn 
/clnding that hjs ^Sp. agreed with Jiis (ext, wherever he has 
pot specifip4 t^e contrary, or when J ^ep J'ou gravely copying 
3tephens's pwp words, and ppdjicji^g thefp a^ various read- 
1^^ pf ^ Grpek MS.,.^ ^aye i^o pther ^^nsj|.tipp th^n th^t pf 
pity for ^ m^xif whp h^ impF^denU^ epg^d in gac^red criti- 
cismj ^vithput possessing the ifpcessary q}:f{4i^<^tipn^. But 
^hen I meet with assertions that cannot be ascribed tp want 
of knowledge ; t^hen I find you quoting Stephens foy evi- 
dence whidi he has not giyen, and suppressing that which 
he really has, and consider that there a^e instances of the 
fi>nBer kin4, i» which yoii could hajrdly have Ijeen taken by 
aurprise, 8a4 jex^ples of the lattpr, in which you neither 
pould haye Ijppn igppr^t pf )7hat Stephens had quoted, nor 
of tj^e imppssibility of copce^ing that quotation, without 
Reading yoiar Te^dpx^ ijutp ^rrpjr, i| is W^ly difficult to avoid 
giving way to the feelings of a just indignation." * 

llns volume xnay be considered as concluding the direct 
fion^Ye]nj occasioned by Gibbon's attack,. Travis never 
returned to &^ diarge. Hib died ftbou^ this t^QUB, ^pt without 

•Pp. 288 -240. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



74 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

a saspicion that the controversy severelj affected his health, 
and contributed to shorten his days. 

In 1801, Dr. Marsh published the second part of the trans- 
lation of Michaelis's Introduction. The kst volume of this 
work contains a Dissertation of that learned Grerman on the 
passage in question ; in which, among other things, he giyes 
a short account of what had been published in Germany, 
in defence of the passage, subsequently to 1750, the year m 
which the first edition of his Introduction appeared, and in 
which he had expressed his opinion that the passage vras 
spurious. 

'^ The first is a thesis written for a public disputation by 
Dr. Semler, at Halle, in 1751, entitled, * Ylndidad plurium 
praecipuarum lectionum codicis Grseci Novi Testamenti, ad- 
versus Whistonum, atque ab eo* latas leges criticas.' This 
tract eminently distinguishes itself from the rest by its pro- 
found learning, and great moderation. It would be super- 
fluous to make any reply to it at present, because the learned 
author himself, who soon after altered his opinion, not only 
confuted all the arguments which had been used in favor of 
1 John V. 7, but wrote the most important work which we 
have on this subject* 

" The next defence of 1 John v. 7 was written by Mr. J. 
E. Wagner, in 1752, and entitled 'Integritas commatis septi- 
mi capitis quinti primsB Joannis epistolae ab impugnationibus 
novatoris cujusdam denuo vindicata.' This treatise was di- 
I'ccted particularly against me, whom the author meant by 

* [The work referred to bears the following title : — " Historische und 
kritische Samralungen Uber die so genannten Beweisstellen in der Dogmatik. 
Erstes Stiick. Uber 1 Joh. 6, 7." I. e. Historical and Critical Collectioiis 
relating to the so-called Proof-texts in Dogmatic Theology. Part I. On 
1 John V. 7. Halle nnd Helmstadt, 1764, 8vo. pp. 20, 429, besides Index. — 
Part n., which I have not seen, appeared in 1768. — Ed.] 



dbyGoOgk 



Tl^AGNEB, KNITTEL, STRESOW, MICHAELIS. 75 

his ^novator quidamJ But with such an adversary as Mr. 
TV^agner I never could persuade myself to enter into any 
oootroversy. 

** After a lapse of above thirty years, the learned Knittel 
undertook another defence of the disputed passage in his 

* New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7/ printed at Brunswick, in 
1785. This is a valuable work, and much useful information 
may be derived from it ; but in the proof of the principal 
point the author has totally failed. 

^In the same year, Mr. Travis published in London his 

* Letters to Gibbon ' ; and in the year following, Mr. Stresow 
printed at Hamburgh his *Open Avowal of the Doctrine of 
the Trinity, as delivered in 1 John v. 7.' But both of these 
publications betrayed the utmost partiality and ignorance." * 

The greatest part of Michaelis's dissertation is occupied 
in combating the ground on which Bengel had rested the 
defence of the text, which is done in a very masterly and 
convindng manner. The sixth seedon is occupied with Mi- 
chaelis's view of the manner in which the passage was intro- 
duced into the Latin copies, from which little doubt can be 
entertained it was afterwards translated into Greek, and thus 
obtained possession, first of one Greek MS., and then of the 
Complutensian Edition. As the section is short, I shall give 
it entire. 

*' When it has been proved, by satisfactory evidence, that a 
• passage is spurious, it is wholly unnecessary to show at what 
time or in what manner the passage was first introduced. 
There are many readings in our common printed text, which, 
at present, are universally allowed to be false, though we 
cannot ascertain by what copyist they were first written, 
or what particular cause has given them birth. In such 
bases we must be satisfied with probable conjecture ; for his- 

♦ Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. VI. pp. 413, 414. 

• Digitized by VjOOQIC 



76 OOKTBOYEUSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V, 7. 

torical eridence ia 8^1dom to be expected, siDce ioterpolatioos 
are in general clandeatine facts, and are very rarely recorded* 
But since the advocates of 1 John v. 7 contend that this pas- 
sage would not have been contained iu the X^atio version 
unless it bad been oontained likewise in the Greek, I will en- 
deavor to show in what manner it was first introdaeed into 
the Latin Tersion. 

" The simple fact* that it had its ori^ iu the Latin, is in- 
disputable, since it is contained in »o aucient Greek manu- 
script, and in no other version* And the cause which ^re it 
birth was probably the following : It appears from the thin} 
section of this chapter, that the African fethers interpreted 
1 John V. 8 mystically, and considered ' the spirit, the water, 
and the blood,' as denoting the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghoet. Further it must be remarked, that the Afri- 
can fathers were the first who discovered X John v# 7 in the 
Latin version. The combination of these two facts leads to 
tlie following probable eonclumn; that the spiritual inter- 
pretation of 1 John y. 8 was written in the margin of one or 
more Latin manuscripts, and that in order to distinguish the 
terrestrial from the celestial meaning, the words *in terra' 
were added as a marginal gloss, in reference to * testimonium 
dant' in the eighth verse, by which means both the literal 
and the spiritual meaning were rendered perfect According 
to this representation the text and the margin stood thus : — 



* in terra. 

Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant 
in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus 
ISanetus: et hi tres unnm sunt. 



" Quoniam tres sunt, qui 
testimonium dant,* spiritus, et 
aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres 
unum sunt" 



When a copy of this kind fell into the hands of ignorant 
transcribers, who were making new transcripts of the Latin 
Bible, they imagined that what was written in the margin 
was a part of the text, which had been omitted by mistake ; 



dbyGoogk 



MiCHAEUS. 77 

consequentlj they inserted it in the text of the manuscript 
t?hich thej themselves were writing. But some of them in- 
serted the marginal reading before the text, of which it was 
the interpretation, others after it ; and this is the reason why 
the controverted passage has no fixed place in the Latin fiaan- 
uscripts,— the heavenly witnesses sometimes preceding, some- 
times following the earthly witnesses. 

^ In this manner the passage having gained admittance in- 
to one or more Latin manuscripts written in Africa, it had 
the undeserved good fortune to be quoted in the Confession 
of Faith presented at the end of the fifth century by the Af- 
rican bishops to Hnneric, king of the Yandald^ And as these 
bishops became martyrs, and were said even to have per- 
formed a miracle, the passage, in consequence of its having 
been quoted in their Confession, not only acquired celebrity, 
but was stamped with authority* Hence other Latin t^*an- 
scribers, especially they who lived in Africa, were induced to 
follow the example of those who transferred l^e passage trom 
the margin to the text And, as the Carthaginian and Bo- 
man churches were closely allied, this example soon spread 
itself to the transcribers who lived in Italy. It must be ob- 
served, however, that the example was not imitated univer- 
sally ; for Facundus, .who lived in the sixth century, did not 
find the passage in his manuscript of the LatJn version. This 
appears from the circumstance that he proves the doctrine 
of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation of the eighth verse ; 
which he certainly would not have done if the seventh verse 
had been contained in his manuscript, because in thsi verse 
the doctrine whidi he intended to prove is literally And di- 
rectly asserted. After the sixth century the whole Latm 
Church was involved in ignorance and barbarism; a& critical 
inquiries were at an end ; and both spurious and genuine pas- 
sages were Teceived without distinction^ In the Middle Ages, 



dbyGoogk 



78 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

therefore, 1 John v. 7 was generally considered throughout the 
West of Europe as a part of St John's first Epistle, without 
any further questions being asked about it" * 

Such is the decided opinion of one of the most learned, 
candid, and ingenious critics which Germany ever produced, 
of the spuriousness of this passage, and of the method in 
which it crept into the text His explanation is not founded 
on mere conjecture or hypothesis, but on circumstances be- 
longing to the state of the Latin MSS. which strongly sup- 
port the view which he has given. 

In 1807, Dr. Adam Clarke published his useful work, 
"The Succession of Sacred Literature" ;t to which he pre- 
fixes two fao-similes of the disputed passage ; one taken from 
the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament, and the 
other from the Codex Montfortii in Trinity College, Dublin. 
In treating on the first Epi^^tle of John, he makes some ju- 
dicious observations on the text of the three witnesses, in 
order to illustrate his plates. After stating his opinion of 
the age of the Codex Montfortianus, which has been already 
^ven, he proceeds as follows : — 

" Though a conscientious advocate for the sacred doctrine 
contained in the disputed text, and which I think expressly 
enough revealed in several other parts of the sacred writings, 
yet I must own the passage in question stands on a most du- 
bious foundation. All the Greek manuscripts (the Codex 
Montfortii alone excepted) omit the passage : so do cdl the 
ancient versions, the Vvlgate excepted : but in many of the 
ancient MSS. even of this version it is wanting. There is 
one in the British Museum, of the tenth or eleventh century, 
where it is added by a more recent hand in the margin : for 

• Pp. 484-487. 

t [A second edition, enlarged, was publislied in 1881. — Ed.] . 



dbyGoOgk 



CLABEE. 79 

it is waDting also in the text. It is also variously written m 
those manuscripts which retain it. This will appear more 
plainly by comparing the following extracts, taken from four 
manuscripts of the Vulgate in my own possession : — 

^^ 1. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater, 
Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hii tres unum sunt. Et tres 
sunt qui testimcmium dant in terra, Spiritus, Sanguis et Aqua. 

^2. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, 
Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt Et tres sunt 
qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater Verbum et Spiritus Sanc- 
tus, et hii tres unum sunt 

^ 3. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, 
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt Et tres 
sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis. 

'< 4. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiri- 
tus, aqua et sanguis; et hii tres unum sunt Et tres sunt qui 
testimonium dant in Caelo, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, 
et hii tres unum sunt. 

'^5. Quoniam tres sunt qui Testimonium dant in terra 
Spiritus, Aqua et Sanguis, et tres sunt qui testimonium per- 
hibent in Coelo Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres 
unum sunt 

^^ This last I took from an ancient manuscript in Marsh's 
Library, St. Patrick's, Dublin. 

'^In the Bible printed by Fradin and Pinard, Paris, 1497, 
fol., the text is the same with No.. 2, only instead of testimo- 
nium dant, it reads dant testimonium, 

" The reader will observe, that in No. 2, 4, and 5, the 
eighth verse is put before the seventh, and that 3 and 4 have 
JUius instead of verbum. But both these readings are united 
in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains 
the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the 
New Testament, written on thick strong vellum, and evident* 
ly prior to the time of Widiff. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



86 CONTROVEBSY BESPEOtiNG 1 JOHN ^. 7. 

ffltotH or 5ont anB t^e J^oolg ffioost, anb tf)es(t tl^ree ben gotu 
^nH tfyvet ben tf)at gebm loitntsstng in rttiye, ti)c Spirit, WSLutn, 
anH iSlooH, anH tiytse ti|ret ben oon* 

^ As many suppose the Complutensian editors must have 
had a manuscript or manudcHpts which contained this dispu- 
ted passage, I judge it necessary to add the note which they 
subjoin at thi9 bottom of the page, bj which (though nothing 
is clearly expressed) it appears they either had such a manu- 
script, or wished to hav^ it thought they had such. However, 
the note is curious, and shows us how this disputed passage 
was read in the most approved manuscripts of the Vulgate 
extant in the thirteenth century, when St Thomas Aquinas 
wrote, from whom this note is taken. 

^ The following is the whole bote literatim : ^- 
^ ^ Sanctus Thomas in expositione secunde Decretalis de 
suma Trinitate et fide catholica tiractand istum passum contra 
Abbatera Joachim ut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo. 
Pater : Yerbum : et Spiritns Sanctus : dicit ad litteram verba 
sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum 
subditor, Et hii tres unum sunt Quodquidem dicitur propp- 
ter essentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere 
volens ad unitatem charitads et consensus inducebat conse- 
quentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem : Et tres sunt 
qui testimonium dant in terra, s. Spiritus : Aqua : et San- 
guis. Et in quibUsdam libris additur : Et hii tres unum sunt 
Sed hoc in veris exeraplaribus non habetur : sed dicitur esse 
appoditum ab hereticis Arrianis ad pervertendum intell^otum 
sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personar 
rum. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra.' * 

• [Thit is: — ** Saftit tbbmai, in fei^ lekpbsition of the 'second Decretal 
concerning the Most Hijgh Trinity knd the Catholic ftiith, treating of this 
passage, * There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, ^e 
Word, and the fioly Spirit/ in opposition to *^e Abbo^ Joachim, uses pr©- 



dbyGoogk 



CLARKR Bl 

"If tSie Cottiplatensiaii ^Hors trmislated the passage into 
Greek from the VklffOte, it is strange they made no mention 
of it in this place, where Aey had so fair an opportunity, 
while speaking so very pointedly on the doctrine in question, 
^nd foi-ming a note for the occasion, wbiich is indeed the only 
theological note in ^e whole ^olttvne. It is again worthy of 
lK>te, that, when these editors fotind ^a importaiit vatious 
reading in any of their Gk'eds ftianuscripte, ^ey :iaicited it in 
the mai^n: an example occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 5L — Why w>as it 
then that they took no notice of so important an omission as 
the text of the three witnessed if they really had no mana- 
script in which it was oontained? Did they intend to deceive 
the reader, and could they possibly imagine that the knavery 
should never be detected ? If they designed to deceive, they 
took the most effectual way to conceal the fraud, as k is prob- 
able they destroyed the manuscripts from which they printed 
their text; for the Story of their being sold in 1749 to a 
rock^-makery (see Mic^aeKs, Vol. II. p. 440,) is every way 
so exceptionable and uulike the truth, that I really wonder 
there should be found any person who wouM seriously give 
it credit It is 'toore likely the manuscripts wepe destroyed 
at first, or that they are stiH kept secret, to prevent the forge- 
ry (if it be one) of the text of the three witnesses from being 
detected ; or the librarian already mentioned may have con- 
verted them to his own use. If they were not destroyed by 

cisely the following language: -.- * And to teach the unity ot the three per- 
sons ft is subjoined, And these threie are one; which is'snid on account of 
their unity of essence. But Joa<}him, wishing perversely to refer this to 
a unity of affection and agreenaent, alleged the text that follows it. For 
it is immediately subjoined, And there are three thai bear vjitness on earthy 
namely, the Spirit^ the water, and the Mood And in some books it if* added, 
And Uiese three are one. But this is not contained in the true copief*, but is 
said to have been added by the Arian heretics to prevent the text that pre- 
cedes from being correctly understood as relating to the unity of essence of 
the three persons/ — Thus the .blessed Tboaas, as above referred to." — Ed.] 
' ■ 4* , F 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



82 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

the Complutensian editors, I should not be surprised if the 
same manuscripts should come to light in some other part of 
the world, if not in the Alcala library itself." * 

It is worthy of notice in this part of this important contro- 
versy, that Dr. Clarke's suspicion of the story of the rocket- 
maker, who is alleged to have purchased the MSS. from 
which the Complutensian edition was formed, and who waa 
of course supposed to have exploded them long ago, turns 
out to be well founded ; and his anticipation that they might 
one day be discovered has at length been realized. I copy 
the following passage from a pamphlet recently published by 
Dr. Smith. 

" Mr. T. quotes the Bishop of Peterborough's third edition 
of his translation of Michaeh's, to show that the learned 
Bishop has changed his opinion, and now believes the manu- 
scripts from which the Complutensian text was taken to have 
been more ancient and valuable than, agreeably to the gen- 
eral opinion, he had before supposed. This is, however, a 
matter which does not at all affect our argument. Undoub|> 
edly, for reasons of critical curiosity and Satisfaction, we 
should be gratified by knowing the character and history of 
the Alcala manui^cripts ; yet there is the highest moral cer- 
tainty that this knowledge would do nothing more than con- 
firm what is already well enough known. In fact, the matter 
is established : for there is good reason to believe that the 
learned Germans, Moldenhauer and Tychsen, were the sub- 
jects of an imposition practised upon them by some people 
in the Spanish University, who were not disposed to permit 
their manuscript treasures to be scrutinized by Protestants. 
A gentleman with whom I have the honor of acquaintance, 
well known as a friend of rational freedom and a sufferer in- 

♦Pp. 92-97. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



SMITH. 83 

its cause, and whose extraordinary talents as a linguist and 
a poet have eminently enriched our literature, John Bow- 
ring, Esq., has spent much time in Spain, and was the inti- 
mate friend of the most enlightened, learned, and patriotic 
men in that country during its enjoyment of the blessing 
(of which it has been so basely and cruelly robbed !) of a 
constitutional government. He had the opportunity of care- 
fully examining the manuscripts at Alcala ; he has published 
reasons amounting to a demonstration that no scde or destrue- 
Hon of manuscripts ever took place ; by his personal exami- 
nation he found the same Scripture manuscripts which had 
been described as being in the library, by Alvaro Gomez, 
who died in 1580 ; and he adds, < That the manuscripts re- 
ferred to are modem and valueless there can be no longer 
any question.' To Mr. Bowring I am also indebted for the 
information (which, had it been known to Michaelis, or to his 
learned translator, would have been to them most welcome 
intelligence, and would have saved them a world of trouble) 
that Gromez, in his Life of Cardinal Ximenesy states that 
^Leo X. lent to Ximenes those [Greek manuscripts which] he 
required from the Vatican; which were returned as soon as 
llie Polyglot was completed.' " * 

According to this statement, unless some MSS. in the Vat- 
ican, yet unexamined, shall be found to contain the testimony 
of the heavenly witnesses, which is in the highest degree 
improbable, it must be admitted that the Complutensian 
editors translated the passage into Greek from the Latin 
Vulgate ; and thus one of the main, arguments on which its 
authenticity has been erected lyill be entirely overthrown. 

The various readings of t}ie Latin MSS. given by Dr. 
Clarke, and which are only a specimen of the diversity that 
obtains in this passage in the MSS. of the Vulgate, create a 

» Smith's Rejoinder to Taylor, 1829, pp. 48, 49. • 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



S4c CONTROVEBSY BESPS^TNG 1 JOHN V. t 

s&ong sust^idot^ that 1^r6 is «omelAuTig rascally unsoand in 
the authority txf the vers^. Tiie til^iqae theologieal note also 
which Di*. Clarke giv6s frote the Complateiisian, in the very 
ambignity whidi pervades it, savOrs strongly of managenieiit. 
It was felt desirable to strpport thd authority of the Yulgate, 
and yet 9t was deemed imprudent to assert that the pasdi^ 
was found it the Gi^k MSS. Had the evideoee ^eeki Mir 
isfactory, ft Would have biBen more distinctly indicated^ 

In the Bamd year in which Dr. Clarke's^ work w«s pirib- 
lished, A series of papers on the disputed passacge, by afn 
acute and well-informed writer,* appeaf6d in the Christian 
Observer. These papers, had they been pHnted separately, 
which they deserved to be, WOuM have iaad^ a considerable 
pamphlet. . They give a very lucid view of the principiil 
points ttf evidence for and against 'flie authenticity of the 
pa^agtb; With the author's own observations on Bome of the 
writers o^ both sides. He discusses veiy My the state of 
the fii*st editions df the 6re^ Testament, the testhnony of 
the Greek MSS., that of the ahdent fathers [v^ersionfe}, aAd 
the Greek and Latin fathers, s^ 'of which he ^ows to be 
unfavorable to the authority of the pas&^e. His mode of aec- 
coupting for the mistake, or supposed mistake^ 'of Stephens, 
in placing the erotchet, to '^bich "we have already refCTred, 
seems very satisfactory. 

'* The arguments th^t have been urged 'in this amd l4ie 
foregoing chapter pbmteiyning Stephens's MSB$. tn&y be thus 
briefly stated, 

" Fffst. Neither tbe MSS. ti>f the Complutensian "editors, 
nor those of JlrasmfUs, nor any of the 150 which UoW erist, 
except two, both of modem date, eontain 1 John y> 7. Hence 

• [Tha Rey. Joseph Jpwett, LL. D,, Professor of Civil Law in the 
University of pan^bridge. See Home's Introdaction, Vol. IV. p. 886, l6th 
edit-— Ed. J 



dbyGoOgk 



C^RtSTIA^ t}BSERVER. «5 

it seems highly hnprobable that it should be found in all Ste- 
phens's MSS^ 6olTe6ted as thfey were from vaiioms quarters. 

« Secondly. He i-eturned to the Royal Library the MSS. 
n^hich he had bdrrb^M from Tt. Yt?t Sitoon, after a diK- 
gent ^arch in &at libitiry, did not discover 'that ver$^ in a 
single I^S. 

'''"thirdly, ''two ttSS. xlf ih^ EpiAles (tf St. John, whicli 
have been compared with the <:k)nations of Stephens's B and 
«y, irom an extraordinary (Coincidence ot readings, are inferred 
'to be the very MSlS. employed by tihat editor, iff this infet- 
ence be allowed the concltision is inevitable that his B ^nd 
ly had not the seventh vefs^ because it is in neither of >he 
MSS. with which they haVe \>een cdttipared. 

^ Hiese arguments aindnnt to a veiy high degree of ,jVe- 
suinptive evidence ; but great pn^abilitie^ may be overcoiue 
by testimony, l^et u& then attend t6 the testimony pi*odCio.6d 
tipon this ociftasion. 

^ First. Robert Stephens, in his Latin Testament, 154a, 
gays that some Greek copies read thus : Tres sunt qui testi- 
momtim dairt Pater, &c., omitting in ccdo. 

^ Secondly. In his Greek Testament of 1550, he includes 
hf Ttf oipaj^ between marks, and, in the margin, names seven 
MSS., in Which he s'ays these words are wanting. 

" Thirdly. In 1556 he printed Beza's Latin Testament, 
where, in a note on 1 Johii v. 7, are the following words : 
* Legimub et hos in nonnullis Roberti noslri veteribus libris,' 
and on the words in ccelo^ ' Hoc deerat in 7 vetustis codici- 
bus.' Now* if Stephens had no such reading in his MSS., 
how can these repeated assertions be accounted for? tTe 
. cannot suppose that he intended to deceive, where, as Mr 
i?6rson observes, he has furnished every inquisitive reader 
with the means of detection. And it* is hard to conceive 
that^ if an -enror had been committed in the position of lis 

• Digitized by VjOOQIC 



86 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

eemicircle, it should never be detected by Stephens himself 
or suggested to him by his friends or enemies. This, how* 
ever, will appear less improbable if we attend to the follow- 
ing consideration, that Stephens returned his MSS. at least 
as soon as he had completed his edition of 1550, perhaps 
as soon as he had finished his collations. For when he 
presented a copy of that edition, immediately afler it was 
printed, to the divines of the Sorbonne, and they required 
him to produce a MS. with which they might compare it, he 
answered that his MSS. had already been returned to the 
Royal Library. If, in the short and turbulent interval be- 
tween that conference and his migration from Paris, from 
which city he was driven by the malice of his persecutors, 
he had discovered in his Greek Testament the unprecedented 
reading, which omits iv rf ovpcn^ while it retains the rest of 
the disputed passage, he woiild naturally consult his book 
of collations, which would only confirm the printed copy ; 
for, in those collations, it is probable that the mistake first 
arose. 

'* To draw a decisive conclusion from the above-mentioned 
facts, would require no small skill, in weighing and balancing 
opposite probabilities ; and there is one material part of the 
evidence, which, from its nature, is not easily to be appreci- 
ated, but by persons who have had much experience in the 
collation of MSS. I mean tl^at part which relates to the 
proof of identity from the coincidence of readings. How- 
ever, the best critics unanimously agree in the opinion, that 
Stephens's MSS. had not the disputed passage ; and among 
these Mill and Bengelius, whose orthodoxy is not doubted, 
and who were convinced of its authenticity." * 

Afler going over the Greek fathers seriatim, he thuft 
sums up his account of them. 

• Christian Observer, Vol. VI. pp. 227, 228. 



dbyGoOgk 



CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. 87 

** On a review of the Greek fathers, we discover no proof 
that any of them were acquainted with the disputed passage. 
The omission of it in Justin Martyr, in the Adumbrations 
attributed to Clemens Alexandrinns, in the Epistle of the 
Bishops at Sardis, in the Sixty-second Oration of Epiphanins, 
in the Treatises on the Holy Spirit by Basil, Gregory Nazi- 
anzen, and Didymus, is hardly to be reconciled with the sup- 
position that they had it in their copies. And Cyril clearly 
either had it not, or suspected its authenticity. And though 
we might allow the omission in a single father to arise from 
some unknown cause, yet the universal silence of all the 
early Greek writers forms a presumption against its authen- 
ticity, to whidi I know not what can be opposed, unless it be 
suggested that they understood the words these three are one 
as relating merely to unity of testimony, not of essence; 
and therefore thought that no argument for the doctrine of 
the Trinity could be built upon it. But does it appear that 
they actually put such a construction upon these words? Is 
there any trace of such an interpretation in their works ? Or 
is it at all probable from analogy, that they would unani- 
mously refuse the aid of a passage, which almost all modem 
defenders of the Trinity have employed without scruple ? 

" Even if these fathers approved the interpretation above 
mentioned, it remains still to be shown, why they never quoted 
1 John V. 7 in proof of a trinity of persons, or as an exam- 
ple of Christ being called The Word."* 

After examining very carefully the several Latin fathers 
who quote or allude to this verse, he thus sums up his ac- 
count of their testimony. 

** From the foregoing extracts it is evident that the Latin 
fathers are more favorable than the Greek to the authenticity 
of 1 John V. 7. For while not a single quotation or clear 

• Christian Observer, VoL VI. p. 289. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



^ • CONTBOVfiftSt *£SP£€ttN* 1 JOHN V. 7. 

oUodioti to it is found amo»g the latter, fof the firgt tUr^n 
centtinei!», we discover a tefereWie to it rt the thii-d century 
by Cypriiem, find in th* fifth, express quotations by Fulgenti- 
08, and the author of the AfHcan Confession ; in the siifth, 
by Cassiodorus ; ta the eighth, by Etherius and Beatiis. And 
is not thei*' positive lestimctey of greatet wei^t ihscti Ae 
merely negiitiv^ te^tttndfny, the silence, bf any ntrmbef df 
Greek or Latin fathers? It InayTbe difficult indeed to ac- 
oount foi* their sflence "ilfpon the supposition that t3bey wete 
acquainted with the ^sputed passage. Yet, if ft ^ngle wit- 
ness of unsuspected veracity affil-m that it eiisted in his coj)y, 
his testimony may outweigh the ^ctgafaettt drawn from the 
mere silence of great numbers. Since, therefore, a Ladn 
writei* bf the third century has tefetred to it, will not hia 
authority counterbalance the negatave testimony of all the 
Greek fathersl^ 

'^ Many of the Orthodox have thought sO, and the anxious 
desire which sotoe writesl*^ hate shown to set aside this evi- 
dence by the arbiti^ry and tinsatisfactory hypothesis, that 
Cyprian's reference was to the eighth verse and not to {he 
seventh, implies that they felt the superior force of affirma- 
tive testimony. Fot itiy owh part, I freely confess that if 
Cypf ian had affifmed that the seventh verse existed in his 
Greek copy, I should have paid very little regard to the 
omission of it by other fathers of the same or a later cen- 
tury. But, is • this the case ? or have we any evidence that 
he was in possession of a single (jrreek copy of St John's 
Epistle ; or that he could even read Greek ; or that, if he 
could read it, he valued the Greek copies more than the 
Latin? 

" Till these questions are answered in the affirmative, all 
that we can infer from his quotation is, that the testimony 
of the heavenly witnesses was in bis Latin copy. And al- 



dbyGoogk 



1 



tbough Ih&t veroioD, from id hi^ l^tiqhity, is d^id^i'fliig of 
great respect; jet^ among the innumerable and dieooiHlarit 
translations into the Latin, it is possible that the disputed 
passage 'might be interpolated in soine cdpi^ Us torly as the 
age of Cyprian, aM of isourse in thldse tyf Fttlg^tids, Vigil- 
ius, Cassiodorus, fitherius, and B^atus, dibugh unknown to 
Augustine^ Jerome, £uch^riu% Facuddu§, and Bede. 

^ When we refleet that Uie Laiin filthers do not qubte this 
passage uniformly^ dthi^r with respect to the winrds or the 
brder of th« verses^ it is natural to oonblude that theif guidl3 
was not the Ghreek Original, bat the Latin Version ; in the 
MSS. of whidi the sime varieties hare been obiBerred. 

^ Though the charge of intorpcJation kba j be thought ii 
rerj serious dne^ much will depend npoti the tnanner and 
the motive* He who first inserted the seventh tei^e In the 
margin of the Latin version, probably had no intention of 
imposing upon the reader by giving his own comment for the 
word bf taiodi And whfen afterwards it obtftirted a place in 
the text^ the transcribet probably had no doubt but th^t he 
was rest(»ing a fMkssagev which the fi)nher copyist having 
through inadvertence oniitted^ upon the discovery of his mis- 
take had inserted in the margin, for want of convenient space 
in the text 

"It is urged that the verse must be genuine beosuse an 
inteipolation of suck magnitude and importance WbuM have 
been speedily deteete^d and loudly complained of b^ the *Ari- 
ans. But may we not bn the bther hand, with equ^ plausi- 
bility, cimtend that if a passage so decisively in feVor of the 
doctrine of the Trinity had been left out of the copies of St 
John's First Epistle, the omidsioh >^uld hav« been imdiedi- 
ately di&cbvered by the orthodox, and charged upon their 
adversaries ? Since then we find no complaints of tbis sort 
in the Afident w^teie ixf eithbr pfyrty, it id plain diat no in- 
Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



90 CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

ferenoe can be drawn from a silence for which, on both sap« 
positions, it is alike diflScult to assign a probable cause." * 

I have observed, what I had not attended to till the pre- 
ceding sheets were printed, as my copy of Mr. Charles But- 
ler's HortB BibLictB is cont^ned in his Miscellaneous Works,! 
published in 1817, that his " Short Historical Outline of the 
Disputes respecting the Authenticity of the Verse of the 
Three Heavenly Witnesses " was first published in 1805 ; 
some time before the two works which have just been noticed. 
It is contained in two Letters " to the Rev. Herbert Marsh," 
and constitutes the second Appendix to the very interesting 
work of Mr. Butler, which is known to every scholar.^ It 
illustrates the extensive reading, the patient research, and 
the great suavity which distinguish all the productions of one 
of the oldest and most voluminous writers of the present 
day. 

This short outline gives a more brief view of the Contro- 
versy than has been presented in these papers, and omits 
many things which have been introduced in them. There 
are also a few inaccuracies which I have noticed, though they 
are not of any material importance. Thespian which Mr. 
Butler pursues is the following. He gives, 

I. Some account of the state of the question ; II. Of the 
history of the general admission of The Verse into the printed 
text ; III. And of the principal disputes to which it has given 
rise ; IV. An inquiry whether the general sense of the text 
is affected by the omission of The Verse ; V. Some account 

♦ Christian Observer, pp. 854, 855/ 

t [The correct title is " Philological and Biographical Works," of which 
the H(mB BibUccB forms Vol. I.— Ed.] 

t [This " Historical Outline " is reprinted in Vol. H. of Sparks's " (Col- 
lection of Essays and Tracts in Theology," Boston, 1828.— Ed.] 



dbyGoOgk 



BUTLEB-. 91 

of the argument in favor of its authenticity from prescription ; 
YI. Some account of the arguments against it from its absence 
from the Greek manuscripts ; VII. Of the answers to those 
arguments, from its supposed existence in the manuscripts of 
Valla ; Vlll. From its suppgsed existence in the manuscripts 
of the Complutensian editors; IX. And frpm its supposed 
existence in the manuscripts used by Robert Stephens ; X. 
Some observations on the argument arising on its not being 
inserted in the Apostolos or Collection of Epistles read in 
the Greek Church ; XI. On its not being inserted in the 
Oriental versions; XII. On its not being inserted in the most 
ancient Latin manuscripts ; XIII. On the silence of all the 
Greek fathers respecting it; XIV. On the silence of the 
most ancient of the Latin fathers respecting it ; XV. Some 
account is then given of what has been written respecting its 
first introduction into the Greek and Latin manuscripts. 

Under these general topics, almost everything of impor- 
tance in the controversy is noticed. Were I to go over 
them, it would be to repeat a great deal of what has been 
already stated. He gives the evidence pro and con with 
great candor and accuracy ; but lays more stress on several 
points than I conceive they will fairly bear. One or two. 
passages deserve to be quoted for the information which they 
contain. As a Catholic, he feels himself in some difficulty 
from the Decree of the Council of Trent, which pronounces 
the authenticity and correctness of the Latin Vulgate. The 
following passage explains the process by which a good Cath- 
olic may escape from the anathema of the Council, though 
he may dispute the authenticity of this verse. Dr. Geddes 
would .have cut the knot which Mr. Butler's reasoning does 
not unloose. • 

^ Here the communicant with the see of Rome takes an 
higher ground. The Council of Trent, Session 4, declared 



dbyGoogk 



a CONTBOVEBSY BESPEOTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

muLthema to all ' who sboald not receive for holy and cacfonir 
tsAj all &iid every part of the Booka of the Old and Nevr 
Testament, as they had been at^listomably read in the Cath- 
olic Church, and as they stood in the old vulgate edition : ' 
And in the sixth session^ d^lared * the Vulgate to b^ authen- 
tic, and that no one should^ on any preteneei dal:e or |>re8um^ 
to reject it* 

« Now, Whfett the Council of Trent made this deoreej The 
Verse had long been aocHistoMably read in the Catholic 
Church, and long biad^ a part ki the old vulgate edition; 
those', tiierefore, in eommiinion with the see of Rome, who 
tow reject The Verse, fall Vrithin tiie Conner's anadiema. 

"To these objections the adv^saries of The Verse reply: 

'^ 1st, That, in th6 titned o^ Whieh we a^ now speaking 
there wks little of biblical ej^iticistn, and that no works oi 
those times have reached u&, in which such an objection 
either would be made, or would be noticed* 

" 2dly, That, before too great a stress ife laid on its inseN 
tion in lh6 Vtilgato, ^ii accui*ate bdtiob shoiild be formed of 
the editioA denoted, in these tsiases, by the appdlatbn of the 
Latin Vulgate. It does not denote the edition^ anterior to 
* St. Jerome, which, from its. superior celebrity, w«b called the 
Ancient Italic; it does not denote the option published by 
St. Jei^ome; it hier^ly d^ot^ that edition) which, at the 
time of the CoUndl of.T^nt, ti^as generally ih use; and 
aflerWards s6rv^d to the ground'-wofk of the editions pub- 
lished, first by l^ixtus QuintuS, afterwaiNis by Clement the 
Eighth, and which ladt edition is th^ archetype Of the mod- 
ern Vulgate : that this edition patlook more Of the modem 
than of ancient versions^ and that, standing by itself it is, in 
a matter of criticism, of no authority. 

« 3diy, To 'suppose thkt the Countsil of Ts^eftt pfrononnced 
the Vulgate to be Wholly fre6 fh)m error, and the^ ^o cm was 



dbyGoogk 



BUTtER. 94 

at liberfy to vary froQi it, In tmnglai^ <* ^prntm* U go« 
iBg to an extreme. Ir deebping it to N AnA^Atic, Hm CiooBe 
en did not declare fb^ YulgatQ tQ te kiapire^ or ^«Uit4Q| 
tha CouBcii only proAouBoed it to ba u^ermH) where tha 
dogmata of faith or morils are ^ono^^^fl* In ti^W 4ei?isioQ 
every Boman Qathdio must a^^uioa^, M he i^eoejve^ the 
Scripture from tha Qhurch, ander ^Of Authority, aa4 with her 
int^rpretadoB ; bnt fiirth^r than tins, the Cpondl leaves th^ 
Valgate, in mere mattefs of aritioiscB, to tb^ pi^vato judgment 
of every individual. To this ofibet F«tlier jSalmeron, who 
was one of the tea first diseiples of SU Ignati^Q, i^d who 
assisted at ftie Coundl of Trent in the ch^^uotoT D# opa of 
ihe Pope's theologians, i9 eited by $bQ AW>4 i» Y§n(^, to 
have expressed himsdf in the third ^ his prplegopiQun^" * 

Mr. Butler does not seem quito satisfied with Ijiis reiaspn-f 
iag, and hence he introduces Bossi^et, who ppQ^kf ift ^ Vi^^ck 
higher tone of authority. 

^ In ^8 stage of the aigument, Bossuet takes very high 
ground in one of his letter? to Leibniz, published by Mr. 
Dutens, in his edition of Leibniz's work9 ( as, in that lettor, 
Bossuet seems to place the general acquiescence of the So- 
man Catholic Church in the authenticity of The Verse, 
amoQg the traditions which tb^ Chprcb receives, and the 
^dthful are therefore bound to adopt. Am everything which 
has fallen from the pen of that great man is important, and 
the passage i^ qu^Uon is Ijttte l^ipwn, it is here transcribed 
at length. 

"^J'avdue au reste. Monsieur, oe vous dites des anciens 
exemplaires Grecs sur le passage, JVes iunt, Sfc»; mA\& vous 
S9avez aussifbien que moi, que I'artide contenu dans ce pas- 
sage ne doit pas 6tre pour cela r^voqu^ en doute, ^tant d'ail- 

♦ Pp. 883-886. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



94 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

leurs 4tabli, non-sealeaient par la Tradition des JSgliseSy mais 
encore par rEcriture tr^ ^videmment. Vous 89avez aussi 
sans doute, que ce passage se trouve re^u dans tout TOeci- 
dent ; ce qai pardit manifeste, sans m^me remonter pins haut, 
par la production qu'en fait S. Fulgence dans ses Ecrite, & 
m§me dans une excellente Confession de foi pr^sent^e unani- 
moment au Roi Huneric par toute FEglise d'Afrique. Ce 
temoignage produit par un aussi grand Theolo^en, & par 
cette S9avante Eglise, n'ayant point ^t^ reproch^ par les h^r^ 
tiques, & au contraire ^tant confirm^ par le sang de tant de 
martyrs, et encore par tant de miracles, dont cette Confession 
de foi fut suivie, est une demonstration de la Tradition, da 
moins de toute T Eglise d'Afrique, Tune des plus illustres 
du monde. On trouve m8me dans S. Cyprien une fu- 
sion manifeste k ce passage, qui a pass^ naturellement dans 
notr« Vulgate, & confirme la Tradition de tout TOccident 
Je suis, &c 

" * t J- Benigne, Eveque de MeauxJ *' * 

♦ Pp. S84, 886. [That is: — "I acknowledge moreover, Sir, the tnxtfa 
of what you say respecting the ancient Greek copies on the paissage, There 
are ihrte, &c. ; but you know as well as I do, that the article of faith con- 
tained in this passage ought not to be called in question on that account, 
being otherwise established, not only by (he tradition of the churches^ but 
very evidently by Scripture. You also know, without doubt, that this 
passage has been received throughout the entire West; which is shown, 
without going further back, by its citation in the writings of St Fulgen- 
tiue, and even in an excellent Confession of Faith unanimously presented 
to King Huneric by the whole African Church. This testimony, produced 
by so great a theologian, and by this learned Church, having not been ob* 
jected to by the heretics, and, on the contrary, having been confirmed by 
the blopd of so many martyrs, and still further by so many miracles fol- 
lowing this Confession of Faith, is a demonstration of the tradition at least 
of the whole African Church, one of the most illustrious in the world. 
We find even in Saint Cyprian a manifest allusion to this passage, which 
naturally passed into our Vulgate, and confirms the tradition of the whole 
West I am, &c., 

" t J. Bekiokk, Bishop of Ifeattx.''] 



dbyGoOgk 



BUTLEB. 95 

Tradition is no canon of criticism, and can therefore prove 
nothing in matters where parchment and ink are the only 
sathorities. Mr. Butler, mth his characteristic cftntion, does 
act give his own (^inicm on this carious, and, to all well-in- 
formed men, nnsatis&ctory mode of reasoning; nor does 
he give a positive opinion on the spnriousness or authen- 
ticity of the verse in question. He leaves the reader to 
guess whether he doubts as a critic, but believes as a Cath- 
olic 

On another point a passage of* sooie importance occurs, 
and which has also a bearing on the critical authority of the 
received and infattiMy ascd)rtained text of the Vulgate. 

"The adversaries of The Verse contend that ^- it is 

WANTINO IN FORTY OF THE MOST ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS 

OF THE Latin version. This, they say, equipoises, if it do 
not overbalance the authority of those Latin manuscripts in 
which it is contained. 

" In 1743, Sabatier published, at Bheims, his " Bibliorum 
sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquse, sen vetus Italica, et ce- 
lerse qusdcunque in codicibus Manuscriptis reperiri potuerunt, 
quae cum vulgat& Latin^ et cum textu Graeco comparantur." 
The object of the work is to restore the text of the ancient 
Italic by putting together the quotations of the Bible in the 
works of the ancient fathers ; where none can be found, Sa- 
batier supplies the chasm from the Vulgate. He was so 
fortunate as to find, in different parts of the works of St. 
Augustin, a sufficient number of quotations to form the 
whole of the first four chapters, and likewise the beginning 
of the fifth. But, when he comes to the seventh verse, this 
very voluminous father, who wrote not less than ten treatises 
on the Epistle in question, suddenly deserts him, though im- 
mediately after this critical place, he comes again to his 
assistance. This chasm, therefore, Sabatier fills up by a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



94 CONTBOVEBST BEgPfPffiiG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

qVAl»ti49« &mi Yw^ T^papQAiB) V^ ^¥^. iftt the ^ of 

Tbif fiv^ i% I %^9o^^^ rf gr^t iii^pprtaiiee. Jt s^ewn: 
very ♦I^vIFi *hrt ^yw i?^ tt§ Fating? ^ i^m Ifii^^ ftthecj, , 
till ih^ fifth f9QBtiU3F| ^m^ V^ing Wfll^ti^g ^ 1)1^7 ffi the 

^, Bi}tl$i|r thi^ tl^ the jj^-^ifiip^ f^rgpunont 119 fyrot of 
the Y^ife, wMch }m got he^n B^tik^^4oj^}y answereii, i^ ^ : 
having a place in the Confession of Faith, presented by the 
4^ifUi^ 3^#bop(i to QipneriQ. Thi^ Js part of th§ (SW^rpyer- 
sy betw0ei» Tw^i^ wi Poraoff, w whicfr Mr- 35i^%r tbiaks 
the lattey di^pUje^ bjs wi^ wpre iJwa W§ tagi? W l«3fPiPS- 
^is own arguqiei^ )Qn tjbat pas^pi^ }p |^ prged) hgw^T^r, 
appears to nm very ino^dpsiye. It ia> fu}! gf jspppoa^tji^ i^id 
bypptl^iA, Bu^ ^B t)iis tppic will oopvir ^ngajn jn p^ notip^ 
of Bish<^ Bi^>ge68> pii)blipa4ion^ ^9 fh§)l 94y^?l tQ it ^ 
further at present 

The yaliu^bl^ wQr\ of tl^ la^ Sis^c^ Mi^dl^^n 1^ t|^ 
Greek Article, wl^<^ lyas published in 1303, .^^ant^s § long 
and learned note^ ^r rather disquisition, &x this p^^^s^e. 
This yolmne di^pl^^ys more pF0%in4 l^^urning, laboriops isr 
vestigation, and orij^ical aci^eii, tb^i^ apy c^tical or philor 
logical work on jthe ^ew Testan^t p]^blish^4 i^ this coun^ 
during the present cen^ijry. I^ i^ iinpo^siblQ too higMj ta 
estimate its value ^ f^i aid to th^ critie^Ji interpretation of 
th^ New T/^tqmenf. Ind^pen4^ntly of th^ h^i^ W^ phi^ 

losophical iimo^nof dm ^M^m of tbP Mti^l^ ^^ .appli- 
cation of th^ djpct?w^ to |^§ in^fpj^tftlioji cf siaay important' 
pass^iges h^ lenabl^ tjb,e ^m^ ^thor |o thripw fm^ Ji^t 
jipon ^lem. The way in which D^. ^(i^44)Qt^ wa9 led Int^ 
^ di9CU8#iop pQ 1^ disputed psq^l^ j^e (tm^ e^^^jjs:— r i 

f Pp. 8a6,S96. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



MIDDLETON. 97 

*^ It' has been insisted, that the omission of the rejected 
passage rather embarrasses the context : Bengel regards the 
two verses as being connected ^adamantind cohtBrerUid :* and 
yet, it must be allowed, that among the various mterpreta- 
tions there are some which will at least endure the absence 
of the seventh verse. But the difficulty to which the present 
undertaking has directed my attention is of another kind : 
it respects the Article in €h t6 w in the final clause of the 
eighth verse : if the seventh verse had not been spurious, 
nothing could have been phdner than that TO h of verse 8 
referred to cir of verse 7 : as the case now stands, I do not 
perceive the* force or meaning of the article ; and the same 
difficulty is briefly noticed by Wolfius. In order to prove 
that this is not merely nodum in sctrpo quterere, I think it 
ri^t to examine at some length what are the occasions on 
i^hich before cSp the article may be inserted." * 

The nature of the argument which is pursued, in order to 
account fof the use of the article in the eighth verse, cannot 
be understood unless I were to quote, what is impossible, the 
whole dissertation. Nor is it necessary I should do so, as 
Dr. Middleton himself is unable satisfactorily to account for 
the occurrence of the article in the 8th verse consistently with 
his doctrine, nor can he, on the other hand, satisfactorily get 
rid of it. His own convictions seem, on the whole, to have 
been unfavorable to the authority of the verse, and yet he 
thinks the matter not yet entirely decided. 

*i In condudihg this note," he says, ** I think it right to of- 
fer something towards its vindication. I am not ignorant, 
that in the rejection of the controverted passage learned and 
good men are now, for the most part, agreed; and I con- 
template with admiration and delight the gigantic exertions 
of intellect which have established this acquiescence: the 

* Pp. 688, 684. 
6 e 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



n 



98 CONTROVEBSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V.* 7. 

objection, however, which has given nee to this diseiBSiOB^ I 
could not consistently with my plan suppress. On the whole, 
I am led to suspect, that though so much labor and critical 
acuteness have b^n bestowed on these celebrated verses, 
more is yet to be done before the mystery in whidi they are 
involved can be wholly developed."* 

Much as I respect the learning and talents of Bishi^ Mid- 
dieton, I cannot allow that a difficulty, wluch may belong to 
the use of the article by one of the inspired writers* and be 
by no means invariably correct in his Greek phraseology, 
ought materially to affect our judgnient of the readings on 
which an accurate text of the Scriptures must.be founded. 
Such difficulties may be a kind of subsidisuy evidence on one 
side or another ; but can be no satis&ctory pro(^ (^ the real 
reading. It is but justice to Dr. Middleton to say, that it is 
only on this ground that he argues; for thou^ he conceives 
that something additional may yet be brought fd^ward on the 
disputed verse, the evident lewiing of his Blind w^s to the 
evidence in opposidon to its authenticity. 

The controversy experienced a temp<M«ry revival in 1800 
and 1810, by the appearance of im article m the Eclectic 
Review. This able paper, which I believe I api justified in 
ascribing to the pen of the Rev. Dr. J. P* Smith, of Homer* 
ton, is a review of the Improved VersioA of the New Testa- 
ment, by some anonymous UnitarianB. The disputed passage 
here passes under review, in notidng the text firom which the 
Improved Tersion had been formed. In reference to it, the 
learned writer says, ^ It is found in no Greek MS., ancient 
or recent, except one to which we shall presently advert; — 
in no ancient version, beingvjnterpolated only in the later 
transcripts of the Vulgate. Not one of t^e Gre^ £sither8 

• Pp. 662, 063. 

■ Digitized by VjOOQIC 



J. F. jsmra 9d 

veoogakes it, ilioa^ mnrjr of than coUeeC epery species and 
shadow of ai^mnent^ down to the- most aliegorieal and shock- 
iof^ lidicidoas, in ^or of the doetiiiie of the Trinity, — 
though thej often dte the words- immediatelj eontiguonsy 
both before and after, — and though, with immense labor and 
art, they extract firom the next w<»rd» the ^ery seise which 
this passage has m fbUowing titnras: been adduced to furnish. 
iM the Latin fathers^ not ene ha& quoted it, tLU Eucherius^ 
^f I^ns^ m the m£d^ of the fif& eenturj ; and in his 
works tiiexe is ixuielL leaaoa to belie¥e that tt has beoA inter- 
polated."* 

The ezpsessiott of tMs ej^kokm roused the ind^oation of 
an indiyidnal,. who had more iseal thf^i knowledge* S&ortlj 
m&eat there appeared ^The Criti<]^in the Ediectic Review, 
on 1 ikhn t* 7^ confuted by Mairtia's Examination of Emr 
lyn's Answer ; to whkh k added^ an Appendix, eointaining 
remarks on Mr. Person's Letters to Archdeaeon Travis. By 
J. Pharez." 8vo. 1809» To thifr feeble champion of a lost 
cause,, the learned reviewer r€(joinf^d,. in two a^le papers in 
tiie months of Januaqr aiul Fel^ary, I&IO. After going 
tl»rough the several steps of the argmmsnt in a very lucid 
and masterly manner, iie thus characterizes this production 
of the Dnneiad : — ^^ The pamphlBt whid^ ha& led us to this 
discu8si<m must be allowed to be an extraordiaary f»roduction. 
A Greek motto oa the title-page is sa hapiiify soaaaged,. as to 
suggest i^trewd proof that the writer canaot construe a line 
of that; language. Grossly deistitate of literature, and the 
very lowest principles of critical science, he assaults the 
greatest crilic in Europe^ and unga aloud his self-oomi^cent 
triumph. Actually ignorant tchai words are deemed spurious, 
and what axe held to be genuine, and equally ignorant on the 

• Eclectie Beview, Vol, V. p. 248. 



dbyGoOgk 



100 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

nature of the evidenoe and the minor points of the case, he 
blunders through page after page with the most comfortable 
fatuity. He truly deserves our pity ; but as to feeding angry 
with him, it is quite impossible/'* 

In 1810, the publication of a British edidon of Griesbach's 
Greek Testament, in an appendix to the second Tolume of 
which is a valuable dissertation on 1 John y. 7, brought more 
generally before British scholars the judgment and reason- 
ings of that distinguished critic It contains a succinct and 
correct statement of the whole case, which is decidedly un- 
favorable to the authenticity of. the verse. The substance 
of the dissertation is, that the text is not found in any Greek 
MS. except one of very recent date, — that it is not quoted 
by any Greek father, — and that it rests chiefly on the au- 
thority of Yigilius Tapsensis. He sums up his discussion 
by saying, " If vouchers so few, doubtful, suspected, and re- 
cent, and arguments so trifling, could suffice to establish the 
genuineness of any reading, in opposition to so many weighty 
testimonies and arguments, there would no longer be any cri- 
terion of truth and falsehood in criticism, and the whole text 
of the New Testament would become wholly uncertain and 
doubtful." 

The authority of Griesbach in matters of. criticism stands 
deservedly high. His doctrinal sentiments are not suspected 
of heterodoxy, his candor is generally acknowledged ; and 
of his learning, laborious diligence and soundness of judg- 
ment, there can be but one opinion among competent judges. 
The influence of his decisions on the correctness of any read- 
ing may therefore be expected to be great. Indeed, I que.^ 
tion whether the authority of any text, which he has decidedly 
^ejected, is likely to be restored. Dgubts, it is true, exist re- 
♦ Eclectic Review, Vol. VI. p. 162. 



dbyGoOgk 



NOLAN, 101 

specting bis mode of classifyiDg the M3S. of the Greek Tes- 
tament, and something very formidable has been adduced 
both hy Laurence and Nolan against his whole system of 
recensions ; but I do not know that the resnlts, as to the text, 
wiU be materially different, though a very different system 
of classification should be adopted. His judgment as to the 
age and authority <^ the various MSS. which have been ex- 
amined, and of the collateral evidence, is likely to stand the 
test of the most rigorous examination. 

Previously to entering on the controversy in which Dr. 
Burgess, formerly Bishop of St. David's, now of Salisbury, 
has been so long engaged, and which still continues, it may 
be proper to notice several works in which the subject occu- 
pies a prominent place, though it is a secondary, and not the 
primary object. Such, however, is the importance attached 
to the authority of this passage by the writers, that it is not 
going too fiar, perhaps, to say, that had not this passage, and 
one or two others, been concerned, the volumes we are about 
to refer to would never, probably, have been written. They 
f<Hin an additional illustration of the manner in which the 
controversy has branched off into other subjects. 

The first of these works which deserves attention is one 
of great labor imd research. ^An Inquiry into the Integrity 
of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testa- 
ment: in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed, 
the Integrity of the authorized Text vindicated, and the 
various Readings traced to their Origin. By the Rev. Fred- , 
erick Nolan, a Presbyter of the United Church." London. 
1815. The leading object of Mr. Nolan's work is to main- 
tain the integrity or correctness of the common Greek text 
against the objections of Griesbach, and especially to over- 
throw his classificaticm of the Manuscripts. He has done a 



dbyGoogk 



102 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

good deal to sbake the fabrie on which f^e learned Oermati 
has constructed his ingenious system of classification ; tot ivot 
much to establish the immaculate purity of the eommon text. 
After making, in his preface, some objections to the elaborate 
theories of those trho m^ntain the imperfections of the text, 
he proceeds to stiUe his own theory, or plan of defence, and 
the arrangement of his work. 

" On these grounds the first notion was formed by the aa^ 
thor of the following pages, that an Inquiry into the history 
of the sacred text would most probably lead to the perfect 
Tindication of the vulgar edition. He was encouraged in this 
expectation by the effect which he perceived a few ftrcts had 
in solving some of the greatest difficulties which embarrassed 
its history. At two periods only could he perceive the possi- 
bility of the eccliesiastical tradition having been interrupted ; 
during the ascaidancy of the Arian party under Ckwistantine, 
and on its suppression under the elder Theodosius. The de- 
struction of the sacred books in the Diodesian persecution, 
and the revisal of the sacred text by Eusebius, furnished an 
adequate soluticm of the greatest diflicuity which arose, from 
the varieties in the copies of the original text, and ctf the 
translations which differ from the Greek V«lgate. 

" To this point, of consequence, his first attention is turned ; 
and it forms the subject of the first section of the following 
Inquiry. He has thence endeavored to show that the coin- 
cidence between the Eastern and Western texts, on which 
the credit of the Corrected Edition is rested, must be attrib- 
uted to the influence of Eusebius's revisal, which was pub- 
lished under the auspices of the Emppror Constantine. 

**Thus far, however, a negative argument is deduced in 
favor of the Received Text Hie character of this text still 
r^oaains to be investigated : to this point tite author next di- 
rects his attention, and he prosecutes it through the two fol- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



NOLAN. lOa 

lowing sections. As the integi'ity AuA purity of the Greek 
and Latin Churches render their testimony of the highest 
authority in ascertaining the genuine text ; on their joint au- 
thority he has consequently ventured to distribute ihe Greek 
Manuscripts into Classes; and to vindicate that particular 
dass of text whidi ei^ists in the vulgar edition. 

** From the ground thus taken up, the whole subject may 
be commanded almost at a glance. In the following sections, 
the tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches is carefully 
traced from the apostolical age; and on the concurring or 
relative testimony of those witnesses, the general and doctri- 
nal integrity of the Received Text is established. In vindi- 
cation of the verbal integrity of this text, the evidence of the 
Syriac Church is called in ; and on the joint testimony of 
the primitive Version of this Church, and the primitive Ital- 
ic, a decisive argument is finally deduced in favor of the an- 
tiquity of the Greek Vulgate. 

^ In the last section, the adthor has endeavored to point 
out the particular manner in which the remaining Classes of 
Text, into which the Greek Manuscripts are distributed, have 
originated from a corruption of the vulgar edition. The 
whole 5f the diversities in those manuscripts are traced to 
* three revisals of the sacred text, which were published in 
Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. The number of vari- 
ous readings is thence easily accounted for ; and a solution 
offered of some objections which are raised to the doctrinal 
and verbal integrity of the Received Text or Vulgar edition. 

" From this brief sketch of-the plan of the work, the reader 
will easily comprehend in what manner the author has avoided 
those consequences which he charges on the systems of his 
opponents : and how the integrity of the Received Text may 
be established independent of the objections which lie against 
the C(»Tected Edition. An interruption in the tradition, by 



dbyGoogk 



104 C6NTB0VEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

which the former text is supported, is admitted to have taken 
place, when the scripture canon was revised by Eusebius, 
and the Church became subject to the dominion of the All- 
ans. But the tradition is carried above this period, which 
did not exceed forty years, and the Beceived Text proved to 
have existed previously, by its coincidence with those Ver- 
sions of the Oriental and Western Churches which were 
made before the text was revised by Eusebius. So that, al- 
though the tradition has been interrupted for this inconsider- ^ 
able period, it has remiained as unsophisticated in the two 
centuries which preceded Constantine's age, as in the last 
fourteen, during which it has confessedly remained uuQor- 
rupted."* 

All this may seem very plausible, and is very fngeniously 
supported by the learned author ; but it is one of the purest 
hypotheses ever devised to support a favorite idea. It as- 
cribes a great deal t^o much to the tradition of churches ; 
assumes that they took -more pains to preserve or to corrupt 
the text than there is any reason to believe they ever did ; 
and refers to revisals and editions, almost as if he were speak- 
ing of printed works. He contends for what I conceive to 
be a very objectionable position, — the doctrinal purity of a 
church, as the guaranty of the purity of the text of Scrip-* 
ture, instead of the text preserved by the providence of Grod, 
the great means of correcting the errors and guiding the 
opinions of all churches. Mr. Nolan certainly does not in- 
tend to serve the cause of Popery, but there is something 
in his argument which a learned Roman Catholic would con- 
sider as very favorable to one of the leading doctrines of his 
church, — the authority of ecclesiastical tradition. 

It is not my business, however, to pronounce upon the 
general merits of Mr. Nolan's work further than they have 
* Kolan*s Inquiry, Pref. pp. xii. - xv. 



dbyGoOgk 



KOLAN. 105 

ft relation to- the subject of our Memoir. I consider Gries- 
bach's classification of MSS. arbitrary and hypothetical ; I 
have the same opinion of Nolan's hypothesis, which is placed 
in opposition to it. He has succeeded in demolishing the 
fabric of his opponent, but not in establishing his own. The 
integrity or incorrectness of the Greek text must' be proved 
or disproved by facts and reasonings, independent of all stich 
schemes. 

Mr. Nolan abandons the authority of the Greek MSS. and 
the Greek Church in support of the dfsputed passage, and 
rests its defence entirely on that of the Latin or African 
Church. I cannot give the .whole of his argument, but the 
following passage, I think, contains everything of importance 
in it. 

" With respect to 1 John v. 7. the case is materially differ- 
ent. If this verse be received, it must be admitted on the 
single testimony of the Westcirn Church ; as far at least as 
respects the external evidence. And. though it may seem 
unwarrantable to set aside tlie authority of the Greek Church, 
and pay exclusive respecf to the Latin, where a question 
arises on the authenticity of a pas.<age which properly belongs 
to the text of the former ; yet, when the doctrine inculcated 
in that passage is taken into account, there may be good rea- 
son for giving even a preference to- the Western Church over 
that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the 
heresy of ihe Arians, who rejected the doctrine oi the pas- 
sage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that 
heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church 
retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the 
latter on the subject before us is consistent and full, that 
borne by the former is internally defective. It ft delivered 
in language which has not even the merit of being grammat- 
ically correct ; while the testimony of the latter is nbt only 
5* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



106 . CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOIIN V. 7. 

unexceptionable in itself, but possesses the singnlnr merit of 
removing the forementioned imperfection, on being merely 
turned into Greek, and inserted in the context of the original 
Under these circumstances there seems to be little reason- 
ableness in allowing the Western Church any authority, and 
denying it, in this instance, a preference over the Eastern. 

^ But numberiess circumstances conspire to strengthen the 
authority of the Latin Church in supporting the authenticity 
of this passage. TTie particular Church on whose testimony 
principally we receive the disputed verse, is. that a^ Africa. 
And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most 
implicit respect is due to its testimony. 

^ 1. In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern 
and Western Churches for eight years, with scarcely any in- 
termission ; and which subjected the sacred text to the great- 
est changes, through that vast tract of country which extends 
round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African prov- 
inces were exposed to the horrors of persecution but for an 
inconsiderable period. The Church, of course, which was 
established in this region, neither required a new supply of 
sacred books, nor received those which had been revised by 
Eusebius and St Jerome ; as removed out of the. range of 
the influence of those ancient fathers. 

" 2. As the African Church possessed this competency to 
deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on the subject before 
us ; that which it has borne is as explicit as it is plenary : 
since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole 
Church assembled in council. Af^er \he African pt-ovinces 
had been overrun by the Yandals, Hunerick, their king, sum- 
moned the bishops of this Church, and of the adjacent isles, 
to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed pas- 
sage. ^ Between three and four hundred prelates attended 
the Coundll, which met at Carthage ; and Eugenius, as bishop 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



iJOLAM. 107 

of tbat see, di*ew np the Confession-of the orthodox^ in which 
the contest^ verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church 
should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained 
in the received text, is wholly inconceivable : and admitting 
that 1 John v. 7 was thus generally received, its universal pre- 
valende in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing 
it to have existed in it from the beginning. 

" 3. The testimony which the African Church has borne on 
the subject before us is not more strongly recommended by 
the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the 
evidence which attests the -authenticity of the contested pas- 
sage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedetisis, 
St Cyprian, and TertuUian, were Africans, and have referred 
to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which fdlow 
ea«h other at almost equal intervals, tHe first is referred to 
the age of Eugenins, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. 
They thus form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testi- 
mony of the African Churdi until it loses itseslf in time im- 
memorial. 

" 4. The testimony of the African Church, which possesses 
these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the 
corroborating evidence of other churdies, which were simi- 
larly circumstanced. Phoebadius |ind Eucherius, the latti^r 
of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gnlli- 
can Church, were members of the latter; and both these 
churches had been exempt^ not less than the African, from 
the effects of Diocletian's persecution. B^ these early 
fathers, Pho&bfulius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of 
the contested passage : the testii^ony of the former is entitled 
to the greater respept, as he bpldly withstood the authority 
of Hosius, whose iqfluenqe tended to extend the Arian opin- 
ions in the Western World, -at the very period in which he 
cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses, 

Digitized by VjOOOIC 



108 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

we have, in the testimoi^jr of Maximus, the evidence of a per- 
Bon who visited ^ African Church ; and who jthere becom- 
ing aoqaainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for 
the purpose of employing it against the Arians. The testi- 
mony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that 
of the African Church. 

^ 5. .We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church 
in confirmation of the African Churches. Not to insist at 
present on positive testimonies, the disputed verse, though not 
supported by the text of the original Greek, is clearly sup- 
ported by its context. The lattec does not agree so well with * 
itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Churdi. 
The grammatical structure, which is imperfect in itself, di- 
rectly recovers its original integrity on being filled up with 
the passage which is ofiered on the testimony of this witness. 
Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly ccu*- 
roborative of that of the Western. 

**6. In fine, as Origen and Eusebius have both thought 
that one church becomes a sufficient voucher for one even of • 
the sacred books of the Canon ; and sis Eusebius has borne 
the most unqualified evidence to the integrity and purity of 
the Church of Africa, we can have no just grounds for re- 
jecting its testimony, on a single verse of Scripture. And 
when we consider the weight of the argument arising in fa- 
vor of this verse from the internal evidence; how forcibly 
the subject of it was pressed upon the attention of St. John ; 
and how amply it is attested by that extiemal evidence which 
is antecedent, though deficient in that which is subsequent to 
the times of the Apostles, our conviction must rise tliat this 
passage is authentic. B|it when we add the very obvious 
solution which this wan^ of subsequent evidence receives 
from the probability that JJuspbius suppressed this passage in 
the edition ^l|iph lip feYise4 ; ^n^ whiph became the received 

* ^ Digitized by VjOOQIC 



NOLAN. 109 

text of the Church, which remained in subjection to the Ari- 
ans for the forty years that succeeded 'r I trust nothing fuither 
can be wanting to convince any ingenuous mind that 1 John 
Vi 7 really proceeded from St. John the Evangelist." * 

The notes of the author on this passage, which I cannot 
quote, add some additional weight to his argument, and throw 
some light on parts of his text, which to general readers must 
appear obscure : but I cannot help again saying, that to main- 
tain the purity of the text of Scripture by the testimony of 
any church is dangerous ground. To refer to confessions 
of faith in proof of what must have been the reading of the 
sacred text while the readings of MSS. of the Scriptures 
preserved by that very church are not in unison with the 
confession, is a very clumsy mode of establishing the point 
That Eusebius possessed the power, or the disposition, to 
alter the sacred text; or that any alteration made by him 
should have found its way into all existing Greek MSS., is 
altogether improbable, or at least destitute of any adequate 
support. 

, Although I consider that Mr. Nolan fails in maintaining 
the common reading in 1 John v. 7, and in supporting his 
hypotheses generally, it is due to him to say, that his work 
ccmtains much that is worthy of attention from the biblical 
scholar, and is written throughout in a very commendable 
spirit of moderation and candor. That I may not be consid- 
ered as keeping back anything which belongs to the other 
side of the question from wh£it I espouse, I extract the fol- 
lowing note, in which Mr. Nolan gif es some account of the 
reading of the ancient French and Waldensian versions. 

** Of the old versions which have been published in French, 
two were made by the Waldenses ; vid. Le Long, Bibl. Sacr. 
Tom. L p. 813, coL 2. e. Morland on the Church of the Val- 

♦ Pp. 298-806. 

. Digitized by VjOOQIC 



110 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

leys, p. 14. Bat one copy of this version has fallen into my 
hands, which was printed at the native place of Peter Waldo; 
* Au Lyon, Tan de grace 1521.* The following i» the read- 
ing of 1 Joh. V. 7, 8. foL dxiv. b. * Trois dioses sont qui 
donnent tesmoing au del, le pere le filz et le sainct esperit, 
et ces trois sont nne chose. Et trois choses qui donnent tes- 
moing en terre, esperit eaue et sang/ This testimony would 
be of little importance until the character of the translation 
was investigated by a comparison with other French Ver- 
sions and the old Italic and modem Latin Vulgate ; were it 
not for the following considerations : (1.) It differs from the 
Latin Vulgate; as It reads /le filz* for * Vei1)um.' (2.) It 
agrees in this reading with an ancient Confession of ^idth, 
used by the Waldenses, Leger, Hist Gen. des Eglis. Vau- 
dois, P. I. ch. viii. p. 50. ed. Leyd. 1669. Eschan|;. V. de 
la Doctrine des Vaudois, contenant la fidele traduction de 
TExposition qu'ils ont donn^ au Symbole des Apdtres — oil 
ils en prouvent tons les Articles par passages eocprh delaS. 
Ecriture. — Lequel Dieu est un Trinity, commeil est ecrit 
en la Loy, * O Israel ^coute,' &c. — Et ^ Jean^ ^11 y en a 
trois qui rendent 'temoinage au cieL, le Pere, le Fih^ et le & 
JSsprit, et ces trots sont un,* The original of this passage, as 
far as I can gather from M. Leger, may be found in le Sieur 
du Perrin, Hist, des Vaudois et Albigeois, chap. v. p. 201. 
sqq. The proof appears to me to be so far complete, that 
this passage was adopted in the authorized text used by the 
Waldenses. The following considerations seem adequate to 
evince that it existed in the Latin Version revised by St. 
Eusebius of Vercelli, who published the old translation which 
prevailed in the Italic Diocese. (1.) In reading 'Filius,' it 
agrees with Tertullian and Cyprian, against the common tes- 
timony of the Modem Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers ; vid. 
infr. p. 291. n. sqq. (2.) Sf. Eusebius might have hence 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



OXLEE. . Ill 

ad(^ted this reading, as he has adopted dther readings from 
those fathers, in his revisal: vid. infr. J. 146. n. (3.) The 
Frendi version agrees with the old Italic in possessing other 
readings derived from the same source : in the Lord's Prayer, 
we find, instead of * ne inducas nos in temptationem,' Lot, 
Vfdff., * ne nous mene mye en temptacion, cest a dire ne souf- 
Jre mye que nous syonz temptez': conformably to Tertullian 
lUid Cyprian : vid. infr. p. 330. n. . (4.) The disputed pas- 
sage, as read in the Waldensian Confession, and thfe French 
Version, is accommodated to the state of religious opinion 
which prevailed in the age of St Eusebius. By changing 
Verbum to Filius, in vers. 7. the Sabellian evasion of the 
passage was obviated : vid. infr. p. 539. n. By cutting off 
* et hi tres (in) iinum sunt,' in. vers. 8. the Arian evasion of 
the passsage was equally obviated. For this phrase fur- 
nished some countenance to the nation of those heretics, who 
asserted that 'unurn sunf signified an unity, not of sub- 
stance, but of will and testimony. As these are coincidences 
which the Waldenses cannot be supposed to have created, I 
thence conclude, that 1 John v. 7. not only existed in the re- 
visal of the old Italic Version made by Eusebius Vercellen- 
sis ; but that the peculiar reading of this text, which is found 
in the French Version, and which has excited M. Person's 
notice, has been thus remotely adopted froni St. Cyprian: 
vid. Porson. Lett to Trav. p. 377. It thus easily made its 
way into Wicklef 's translation, through the Lollards, who 
were disciples of the Waldenses ; vid. Pors. ibid. Mori. ub. 
supr. p.l84"* 

m 
The work of Mr. Nolan occasioned a ^controversy in the 

Christian Remembrancer for 1822, between that gentleman 

and the Rev. John Oxlee. It was carried on, as discussions 

* Pref. pp. xviii., xix. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



112 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

of this nature in periodical works usually are, with a good 
deal of warmth, but without the names of the parties ap- 
pearing. It led at last to the publication of the following 
pamphlet: "Three Letters addressed to the Rev. Frederic 
Nolan, Vicar of Prittlewell, on his erroneous Criticisms and 
Mis-statements in the Christian Kemembrancer, "relative to 
the Text of the Heavenly Witnesses ; in which are contained, 
also, Strictures on the Vindication of the spurious Passage 
by the Bishop of St David's : together with a new Transla- 
tion of the Grenuine Text, proposed and defended from every 
CaviL By the Rev. John Oxlee, Rector of Scawtqn, and 
Curate of Stonegrave." York. 1825. 

At present I shall postpone any notice of the debate with 
Dr. Burgess, till we come to that period of the controversy 
in which the Bishop is more particularly concerned, when 
Mr. Oxlee again appears ; nor shall I say an3rthing of the 
style in which Mr. Oxlee has treated his oppK>nent. His 
language is tiiat of unmeasured severity and contempt. To 
this he appears to have been provoked by some things said 
by Mr.' Nolan ; but scarcely anything can justify the language 
which he has, in several places, employed. He writes, how- 
ever, like a man thoroughly at home in the whole debate ; to 
whom the vast range both of Oriental and Occidental learning 
is familiar. He meets the views of his oppcment on the te>ti- 
mony of the African Church, and likewise his reasoning on 
the French and Waldensian versions, in the most triumphant 
manner, leaving not the shadow of argument unanswered. 
The reasonings for the authenticity of the prologue to the 
Catholic Epistles, on which so much stress has: been laid, be 
also very ably refutes. . In his third letter he brings for\?!trd 
a new translation of the genuine text, which he endeavors to 
defend and illustrate. Mr. Oxlee, like many other ingenious 
and able men, succeeds better in overthrowing the system of . 



d by Google 



OXLEE. 113 

^ Others than in sastaining his own. On a passage, however, 

. which involves so many difficulties, and which is of hard in- 
terpretation, independently of what may be regarded as the 
true reading, it becomes us to be modest, whether in object- 
ing to the views of others or maintaining our own. I am 
wxtTj I cannot give Mr. Oxlee's arguments in support of his 
new translation at full length ; but it is due to him to give 
the principal pas^^e. 

^ The connection of what is now the eighth^ with the sixth 
^erse, is so close that there is no understanding their import 
without furnishing the Whole context Tliis I shall do, ac- 
cording to the Alexandrine Mantiscript^ which is supported 
in its reading of the sixth verse,- not only by Cyrillus Alex- 
andrinus, but by the later Syiiac, the Armenian, the Cop- 
tic, and \h& ^thiopic versions. It is here given with the 
amended tianslation subjoined. oZroi iariv 6 iXO^v Hia vHaros 
Ka\ (UfiaTog Kol irvcvfuiroff, 'li/oovr XpiaT6s • ovk iv r^ vhan fi6vov, 
dKkii Iv ry vbari icai iv r^ irycvfuirt • fcai rh iTP€Vfid iari t5 fiafrrvpovv, 
Sri rh irvtvfM iari,v ^ oX^^cio. "Ori rpc t£ ciaiv ol fiaprvpovvres, rh 
vytvfta, Kal t5 vdcop, xal t6 alfia • Koi ol rpfis cis r6 Iv tiiriv. ^— ' This 
is he who came by water, and blood, and spirit, Jesus Christ ; 
not with the water only, but with the water and with the 

' spirit r-and the spirit is that which beareth witness ; for the 
spirit is the truth. For there are three who attest or bear 
witness, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the 
three are for one thing.' The Armenian version of the sixth 

: verse is as follows: — *This is he who came with water, and 
with spirit, and with blood, Jesus Christ; not with water 
only ; but with blood and water: and the spirit is that which 
beareth witness ; for the spirit is truth.' The Coptic reads 
thus : — ^ This is he who came by water, and blood, and 
spirit, Jesus the Christ : not with the water alone, but with 
the water and the blood ; and the spirit beareth witness, for 



dbyGoogk 



114 CONTBO\CERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

the spirit is the truth/ The Philoxenian, or later Syriac 
version, as edited by Professor White, agrees with the Cop- 
tic, The iBthiopic version of this verse, in its present cor- 
rupt state, is evidently ungrammatical, and in the London 
Polyglot very inaccurately translated; but by omitting the 
prefix, Beth, before the repetition of the term, Manfes^ Spirit, 
it will then, with the context, yield the following grammatical 
and consistent sense : — ^ And who is he that overcometh the 
world, except him* who believes that ^e Lord Jesus is the 
Son of God ; WacamOy and that he came by water^ and by 
spirit, and by blood, Jesus Christ ; and not by water only, 
but by water and by blood ; and it is the spirit which beareth 
witness.' — That St Cyrill, in the [^ace 'above alleged, read 
the verse as it now stands in the Alexandrine Manuscript, is 
demonstrable from this circumstance, that, though he is made 
to cite it first as it stands in the generality of the modem 
Oreek manuscripts ; yet he soon after sulifoinS) AXXA mu ^ 
m/iori itol h m^vfWTt; Bui, <dfOy with hhod^ nnd with tpw^; 
. which is intelligible only on the supposition, &at he bad in 
the verse all the three terms, water,, bloody and spirit, as they 
appear in that 'manuscript It deserves to be remaiiced, toc^ 
that in the text of the Witnesses, instead of *0« Tp€u thrtw oi 
fMf)TvpovvT§s, For Oiert ate three who beat witnen x he has, "On 
rpth fiaprvpmiai^ For ihree hear witness ^ which, ^ being com^ 
pared with the Latin version of the same versey Qida tree 
tesHmonium perhibent, in the tract. Be Baptismo HcBreHcd^ 
rum; warrants the conclusion, that, in some of the best 
Greek manuscripts of those early times, this reading was 
prevalent which we now find in St CytilL So far as con- 
cerns the New Translation, it is perfectly immaterial which 
of the two readings should be preferred." * 

The critical, grammatical, and theologicdi ol||eetioitt to 
» Oxiee's Letters, pp. 86-68. 



dbyGoOgk 



OXLEE. 115 

this version, Mr. Oxlee endeavora to meet. With what suc- 
cess must be left to Aie judgment of the reader of his 
pamphlet 

The learned author of this reply to Mr. Nolan possesses 
very considerable acquaintance with several of the Oriental 
languages. It is evident both from this pamphlet, and from 
his "Three Letters to the Archbishop of Cashel, respecting 
his Grace's Apocryphal Pablicatioiis,* that he has a profound 
knowledge of the Rabbinical writings. He is also well ac- 
quainted with the Armenian version, which is rather -an nn- 
common attainment in this country. The foHowing passage 
contains valuable information respecting tbe reading in 1 
John V. 7 of the MSS. of this version, and its present state. 

"There is no trace of it in the Armenian version, which, 
as we now have it handed down to us, was made from Oreek 
manuscripts of the Origenian or Eusebian' recension at CJon- 
stantinople, about the year 432, during the ejnscopttte, and 
with the liberal assistance of the Oonstantinopolitan patri- 
arch, Maximianus. In the first edition, indeed, of the Arme- 
nian Scriptures by Uscan, printed at Amsterdam in 1066, 
the text of the Heavenly Witnesses is inserted ; but for this, 
as well as many other passages, Uscan has been severely 
handled by succeeding editors ; as having attempted to cor- 
rupt the text from the Latin Vulgate, contrary to the authori- 
ty of the Armenian manuscripts. In the edition of the New 
Testament printed at Venice in 1789, both the Earthly and 
the Heavenly "Witnesses -are included in a parenthesis ; with 
the annotation in the margin, TTua thus much is otherwise in 
the manuscripts. Then, again, at the end of the volume, in 
their Advertisement to the reader, where they take occasion 
to explain their- use of the parenthesis, the editors further 
inform us that, in respect of the passage ander dispute, all 
Iheir manuscripts, above ten in number, in conformity with 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



116 CONTROVERSY RESPECTKO 1 JOHN V. 7. 

the old Greek text, as well as with the Syriac and AralMd 
versions, exhibit the text in this £(hort form. Because tim 
Spirit indeed is truth. These three there are who bear tesit" 
monyy the spirit^ and the water, and the blood; and the three 
are one. If we admit the testimony, &c That what was thus 
wanted in the great majority of the manuscripts, and with- 
out any tendency to illustrate the context, they had included 
within a parenthesis, as wholly obstructing the sense of St 
John. In ^h^ x^ritical edition, however, of the who^e Bible 
printed at Venice in 1805, the spurious passage is wholly 
omitted; and the text restored, as above, according to the 
reading of the manuscripts. Since very few of my country- 
men can boast of possessing this edition of the Armenian 
Scriptures, and still fewer, perhaps, of the ability to read it, 
I shall be doing probably an acceptable service to the Eng- 
lish scholar, if I translate the whole annotation of the edi- 
tors on the place, which is as follows : — * Here, as well as in 
many other places, Uscan hath interpolated and altered the 
Armenian text from the Latin version, in this manner. Who 
testijieth that Christ is truth. For there are three who hear 
witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; 
and these three are one. And there are three which bear wit- 
ness on earth, spirit, water, and Mood; and the three are one. 
If^ we admit the testimony of men, &c. But out of about 
eighteen manuscript copied that' we have, ancient as well as 
modem, not to mention two commentaries of universal re- 
ception, one alone, which was transcribed in the year 1656, 
about ten years before the printed edition of Uscan, exhibits 
the text in this form. For the Spirit indeed is the truth. 
These are the three who testify in heaven, the Father, ihe Word, 
and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one. And there are 
three which testify on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood. • 
ff we admit the testimony of men, &c Though there was 



dbyGoogk 



HALES. 117 

also another manuscript copy, which on the surface had an 
equal and similar reading with this ; yet the original or first 
leading had evidently been erased, and the intermediate space 
thus exactly filled up in smalls characters by a more recent 
fioribe. But all the rest of our manuscripts, of whatever de- 
seription, equally, and in accordance with a multitude of the 
more ancient Greek manuscripts, uniformly exhibit the text 
according (o what we have found it our duty to give in the 
foregoing i^ace.' — T^us in the beginning of the nineteenth 
xsentury, the Armenians have happily rescued the printed text 
of their Scriptures from this audacious and manifest corrup- 
tion of the language of St. John ; and I have little doubt, 
that, could the authorized English version be again duly re- 
vised^ the falsified text of .which we compldn would experi- 
ence the same fate. In the interim, it is the duty of the 
clergy of th^ Church of England not to be more culpably 
negligent than others in vindicating the purity of the Holy 
Sicriptures; and, if they cannot immediately remove from 
Uieir tersion the spurious passage, at least not to be afraid to 
-give pu|^lici{y to the fraud." * 

To few writers of the present age is the theological and 
critical reader more indebted than to the Rev. Dr. Hale?, of 
Trinity College, Dublin. His " New Analysis of Chronolo- 
•gy," which appeared in 1811 and following years, contains 
an immense mass of most valuable learning, not merely re- 
lating to chronology, but to all matters of a biblical nature. 
In the second vc^ume of this work, pp. 905, 906, he has given 
his opinion, that the verse in question is spurious. Six years 
after this, however. Dr. Hales declared himself "at length 
perfectly satisfied of the • authenticity and credibility of the 
disputed clause, from a more critical view of the whole of the 
evidence, external and internal, for and against it." 

* Pp. 130-182. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



tia CONTBOVERSY BESPEOTDIG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

The work m wfelcb this, second (^Hmoot k avowed is kis 
« Faitk in the Holy Trinity, the Docfaine of tfec Go^peV 
&C. London^ 1818. 2 y(As. 8vo. Second thbaghte- are some* 
times host, and the learned Doctor had an undoabted- right to 
change his mind, on obtaining anoth^ yiew of the evidence 
from what he formerly had. Bot I eannot h^ expressing 
my surprise that a man of the cook aad aeeamle bbqcI of Dr. 
Hales should avow so strongly his entire satis&etion of the 
authenticiiy of the passage^ without b^g able to plaee the 
evidence cm which that opinion is founded more satisfactorily 
before his readers. 

In the second volume of tins learned w<^ ob the Trinity, 
(for learned it is, though I cannot assent to various parts of 
it,) there is a dissertation of one bunchred pages on the ^s- 
puted verse. In the course of the discussion contained in 
it, Dr. Hales travels over a great part of Ike ground wi^ 
out saying anything new, or placing the e)d argument m 
a more f<Mrcible light He also commits some very ood- 
siderabk mistakes in parts of his statement; leaking of 
Griesbach's account of the Greek MSS. of the Ifen^ Testa* 
ment, he says : — 

^ Deducting several manuscripts that are either mutilsUed 
or imperfect in this place, he counts 146 that omit the clause, 
as collated either by himself, or by others ; namely, Simon, 
Wetstiin, Matth^, Blanchini, Birdi, Lamy, Porson, Marsh, 
Clarke,^ GU)ldhagen, Sinner, and Travis ; and he thus closes 
the account: 

" ' I may venture to assert confTdentty, that there is no 
Greek manuscript, extant in Europe, in which the seventh 
verse is read. For if such was anywhere found, a treasure 
so rare and desirable would have been brought to light long 
ago.' 

'< But of these 146 manuscripts, there are no more than 



dbyGoogk 



HALES. 11^ 

two <^ the oldest class, namely, the Alexandrine A^ and the 
'Vatican B, that omit the clause ; for the Ephrem C is muti- 
lated in this place, and the -Camhridge D, the Laudian E, 
and Coislinian F, do not contain the Catholic Epistles. The 
. isest are comparatively modem ; none, probahly,, older than 
the ninth century, and many of much later date. 

^ The entire nnmber of manuscripts, wholly or partly col- 
lated hitherto, does not mnch exceed 400; aaid these hear 
* but a small proportifm to those that have not been collated 
in Uie several libraries of Europe. There are many manu- 
scripts in uncial letters, in the different libraries of Italy, 
which have never been collated. Of the numbers in the 
Vatican Library, only thirty-four haye been collated. And 
»noe the death of Asseman, the celebrated Orientalist and 
Librarian of the Vatican, the difficulty of access to the man- 
uscripts is so great as to make it idmost impossible for a critic 
to derive, at present, any advantage from tliem. It is strictly 
fcarbidden, not only to copy, but even to collate them. In the 
year 1783, the Abb^ Spoletti presented a memorial to the 
Pope, requesting permission to print the whole of the cele- 
brated Codex Vaticanus. He was referred, according to the 
usual routine, to the Inquisition ; whose permission was re* 
fiised, und^ the plea, that Hhe Codex Vaticantis differed 
from -the Vulgate^ and might, therefore, if made known to the 
' pvhUci be prejudicial to the interests of the Christian re- 
ligion.' 

"In the Florence Library alone are at least a thousand 
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, two of which are 
of the Apocalypse ; of these only twenty-four have been col- 
lated. 

"In the Royal Library of Paris ar^*202 manuscripts, of 
which only 49 have been collated. See Marsh's Notes to 
MkhaeHsj VoL 11. pp. 642 - 647. 



d by Google 



120 OONTROVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

^Griesbachy therefore, has hazarded an unguarded and 
unfounded assertioQ, even with respect to the libraries of 
Europe. And how many ancient and valuable manascripts 
may lie buried in the libraries of Constantinople, it is impos- 
sible to judge. That there are many, indeed, appears from 
the accounts given by the Abb^ Toderini, in his Letteratora 
Turchesca, pubUshed at Venice in 1787, in 8 vols. 8vo. The 
Pope and the Mufti are equally adverse to the publication of 
hidden * treasure so rare and so desirable ^ to the Christian 
world."* 

Passing over other mbtakes in this passage, there is one 
so perfectly absurd, that it is surprising Dr. Hales shotild not 
have perceived it. He gravely asserts, that " in the Florence 
Library alone there are at least a thousand manuscripts of the 
New Testament" And he as gravely refers to Michaelis for 
this fact. It is surprising it did not occur to Dr. Hales, that 
it is not generally believed that there are a thousand manu- 
scripts of the Gree^Testament in existence in all the world. 
The trotl^ is, Michaelis, in the passage referred to, is speak- 
ing of Greek manuscripts in general, which Dr. Hales, by an 
unfortunate mistake, applies to the New Testament in par- 
ticular. The whole of his hypothetical argument, therefore, 
is at once swept away. Instead of there being many uncol- 
lated manuscripts, there is reason to believe that there are 
comparatively few which have hot been examined for evi- 
dence on this very passage ; and all, with the exceptions that 
are so well known, and so little regarded, are against it. 

Towards the conclusion of his dissertation, he expresses 
his confidence, that ^< it will be found exhaustive of the sub- 
ject, and set the controversy at rest in future." f In this 
the leame4 Do<3tor has already found himself to be mistaken. 
The controversy still goes on, and must continue to do so, 

• VoL n. pp. 186-187. t p. 226. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



MARSH. JSl 

tffl evidaieo is acUne^ of ft feiy dUfereot Und, far fe'rOf o# 
tke Terse^ froia what las ever ^ lieeii hiwgbt hrwttt^ 

The mxt w<»rk I hate to mentbn takes^ opposite tide 
from Dr. BMleBf and k in all lespecta worthy of the eritieal 
learaiDg and acumen of iti an^Of . His former labom on 
the subjed have heea abreadjr noticed. lit ^ Sixth Part 
of Dr« Majfslifa (bow Bishq) of PeterbofD^gb) Gbutise of 
Tbeologieal Lectmreg^ as Ladj Mifgaret ProfbMor of Diyin- 
ity, which appeared ia 1822, fat» LoydfiMp again refers to thid 
eonlrovenj^ as affecdfig Hbe creditiM^ of tbB New Testament 
fie diows, as I eoneeive^ widi conndefable ibroe of ailment 
and ingenoitj, ^ that if it be tmie hi regard to the ^puted 
passage, thaA the imci^it Greek fioanos^pls, which have de^ 
sooided to the present age, with the works ef the ancient 
Greek fi^hcns and the mannseripits ci the aneient rersioiM, 
the oldest of the Ladn version not eizcepted, have descended 
to as in a mntilated sMe, Idieie' ia an end tor that secority 
which is derived from their nmtnal agreement, ^ the iateg^ 
ritj of the !New Testanient in all other phices. And we are 
hrooght at length into this dileinmas either to re^qinsh a 
par^ or ahaadoa the tdKde.'* 

AflBF Botickig its absiNioe finona aM tiie aodent Gtedi 
manuscripts and Others, he thov end^Mtvon i& aecocttt Pbf 
its iatnMkietw«k <^ At the ind ef tile Ibnrth centofy, the cel- 
ebrated Lalin fatisef Augottifr, who WKote ten treatise on 
the First j^etlo ef St John^ ii< aH of which we seek in vain 
for the sevealh terse of the §6t ehaplef , was induced, in 
his contiovtii^ With MsaSimin, t» compose a glesft upon the 
eighth veifeei Aogostht fives it ptoiBBsedtf HS a gloss upon 
the words of Ihe eighth tetse, aaii shows, hf his own reason- 
hsg, that iSHe siPvttMib t«k!bd dsd not then «d«t The higlf 
character of Augustin in the Latmi Cfanfeli soM gav% oe« 

6 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



122 CONTBOVEBSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

lebritj to his gloss; and, in a short time, it was generally 
adopted. It appeared indeed under different forms; bat it 
was still the gloss of Angostin, thoagh variously modified. 
-The gloss having once obtamed credit in the Latin Church, 
the possessors of Latin manuscripts began to note it in the 
margin, by the side of the eighth verse. Hence the olde^ 
of those Latin manuscripts which have the passage in the 
margin, have it in a different hand from that of the text In 
later manuscripts we find margin and text in the same hand ; 
for transcribers did not venture immectiately to move it into 
the body of the text, though in some it is interlined^ but in- 
terlined by a later hand. After the eighth century the 
insertion became general. For Latin manuscripts written 
after that period have generally, though not always, the pas- 
sage in the body of the text. Further, when the seventh 
verse made its first appearance in the Latin manuscripts, it 
appeared in as many different forms as there were forms to 
the gloss upon the eighth verse. And though it now pr^^ 
cedes the eighth verse, it ftjUowed the eighth verse at its first 
insertion, as a glbss would naturally follow the text upon 
which it was made. It is not, therefore, matter of mere con- 
jecture, that the seventh verse originated in a Latin gloss 
upon the eighth verse : it is an historical fact, supported by 
evidence which cannot be resisted. 

" But many centuries elapsed before the passage was ex- 
hibited in Greek. The first Greek writer who has given it 
is Manuel Calecas, who lived as late as the ft>urteenth centu- 
ry. And we need not wonder at finding the passage in his 
works, as Calecas was a convert to the- Church of Rome. 
In the fifteenth century the passage was quoted by Bryen- 
nius, who was likewise so attached to the Church of Rome, 
that he quoted other readings of the Vulgate which are not 
found in -the Greek manuscripts. 



dbyGoogk 



MARSH. 123 

" At length, in the sixteenth century, a Greek manuscript 
of the New Testament appeared with 1 John v. 7. Its origi- 
nal appellation was Codex Britannicus : but it is now called 
the Dublin manuscript. It made its first appearance about 
the year 1520; and that the manuscript had just been written 
when it first appeared is highly .probable, because it appeared 
at a critical juncture, and its appearance answered a particu-. 
Jar purpose. But' whether written for the occasion or not, 
it could not have been written very long before the sixteenth 
century. For this manuscript has the Latin chapters, though 
the K€<f)aK(ua of Eusebius are likewise noted. Now the ZcUin 
chapters were foreign to the usage of the Greek Church, be- 
fi[>re the introduction of printed editions, in which the Latin 
chapteis were adopted, ad well for the Greek as for the Latin 
Testament. 

** The Dublin manuscript, therefore, if not written 

for the purpose to which it was applied in the third edition 
of Erasmus, could hardly have been written more than fifly 
years before. And hotr widely those critics have erred in 
their conjectures, who have supposed that it was written so 
early as the twelfth century, appears from the faet, that the 
Latin chapters were not invented till the thirteenth century. 

^But the influence of the Church of Rome in the compo- 
sition of the Dublin manuscript is most conspicuous in the 
text of that manuscript, which is a servile imitation of the 
Latin Vulgate. It will be sufficient to mention how it fol- 
lows the Vulgate at the place in question. It not only agrees 
with the Vulgate in the insertion of the seventh verse : it 
follows the Vulgate also at the end of the sixth verse, having 
XpiOT<5ff, where all other Greek manuscripts have wevfui : and 
in the 'eighth verse it omits the final clause, which had never 
been. omitted in the Greek manuscripts, and was not omitted 
even in the LcUin manuscripts before the thirteenth century. 



d by Google 



124 CONTBOVERSY BE5PKCTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Sacfa is the character of that sditary manuscnpt, which is 
opposed to the united Cridence of all former manusc^ripls, 
ibclading the Codex Yadcanos and the Codex AlexaifRri* 



A singalar work, in which this controversy is introduced, 
appeared in 1822^ under the technical title of '' Palaeoromai- 
ca : or Historical and Philological Disquisiticms : inquiring 
whether tke Hellemstie stjle is not Latin-Greek? whether 
the many mew words in the Elzevir Greek Testament are 
not formed from the Latin? and whether the hypothesis, 
that the Greek Text of many MSS. of the New Testament 
is a transladon or r&'translation frpm the Xiatin, seems not 
to elucidate numerous passages : to account for the different 
Recensions : and to explain many Phenomena hithei^fx) inex- 
plicable to Biblical Critics ? ** 

. The author of this vdnme, who was loi^ concealed, and 
is not yet, I believe, generally known, was the Bev. John 
Blade, Minister of Coylton, in the South of Scotland, and 
Author of the Li£» and Tnmslation, of Tasso« It would 
scarcely be supposed that the clergyman of a small and ob- 
scure parish north of the Tweed would be the author of a 
work which has troubled both the Universities of England. 
But. the translator of Tasso was no ordinaiy man both in 
genius and learning. 

In tills singular volume, the author endeavors to revive 
something like the wild and exploded hypothesis of the Jesuit 
Hardouin, who maintained that our Lord and his Apostles 
spoke Latin, and that the Latin Yu^te was the original of 
the New Testament. The anonymous author of the Palseo- 
romaica contends, that the Greek New Testament is a trans- 
• lation of a Latin original, the text of which is not preserved 
in the Vulgate, or any Latin version in being. He also 

• Lect XXVII. pp. 16-26. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



PALEOEOMAICA. 125 

mmntains that it is « translation by an unknown writer, 
imperfectly acquainted both with Latin and Greek. 

The proo& of these £indfal and extravagant notions, the 
reader will easily suppose, must be Tery extraordinary. The 
writer is by no means deficient in ingenuity, and has evident* 
ly spared no pfuns to bolster up his theory. He argues frAi 
the existence of certain analogous cases of translation from 
the Latin, and particularly from the Aldine edition of the 
Greek Simplicius: from the fact that, in the days of the 
Apostles, Latin, not Greek, was l^e prevailing language of 
Judaea, and other parts adjacent: and from the existence 
of numerous {iatinisms, whidi, he tiiinks, he has discovered 
m the New Testament But it may be pn^^er to give his 
own analysis of his work. 

" It consists," he says, " erf" six Disquisitions, in the first of 
which he examines the opinion, that a knowledge of Gneek 
was general and almost universal in the age of the Apostles ; 
an opinion which is, perhaps, proved to be at once contrary 
to probability, 4nd contradictory to facts. In the second and 
third Disquisitions it is submitted, that, considering that at 
least one of the Grospels, and several of Paul's Epistles, were 
addressed to Latins, it mi^t have been expected that such 
portions of the New Testament should have been sent to 
^hem rather in Latin than in Greek. Whatev^ was the 
primitive language, however, in which the Books of the New 
Testament were originally composed, and adscutting tiiat it 
was Gre^ it is shown by numerous phenomena that at least 
our Elzevir text, or its basis, and, indeed, that of several 
other copies of the Greek Testament in the author's posses- 
sion, (none of them, however, so old as our received English 
version,) bear marks of being a version from the Latin. It 
is submitted, that it seems not improvable that a translated 
or re-translated text may (as in Matthew's Gospel and various 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



126 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

otber remarkable instances which are exhibited) have sap 
planted the original ; and that the Elzevir Testament may, 
like the Aldine Simplicitts, be a Greek re-translation from 
the Latin of an original Greek work. This the author pro- 
ceeds to corroborate, in the fourth Disquisition, by a list of 
\>ords, phrases, &c., arranged into twelve different classes, all 
(if* he mistakes not) tending to establish that what is named 
the Hellenistic style is not Hebrew, but Latin- Greek ; and all 
seeming to support the conclusion, that the peculiarities of 
words and style in our Elzevir or Greek Vulgate are to be 
derived from a Latin original. In this Disquisition the ori- 
gin of whole cohorts of Roman- Greek words, which have 
been singly the subjects of long dissertations, will be shown ; 
and many of them which have frightened philologists by their 
portentous shapes, will be recognized as old acquaintances, 
somewhat mutilated and disguised. 

" The author, in the fifth Disquisition, after attempting a 
solution of some apparent objections to or difficulties in his 
hypothesis, proceeds to show how much it seems to be sup- 
ported by the sentiments and statements of some of the most 
distinguished Editors of the New Testament. It will be 
found that of these some have proceeded on the assumption 
that even the Latin Vulgate (itself a version from the Greek) 
is of greater authority than the modern Greek text ; while 
others accuse the most venerable Greek MSS. of the New 
Testament, and, indeed, in proportion to their antiquity, of 
Latinizing. In the sixth and last Disquisition, the author 
applies his hypothesis to an elucidation of the German theory 
of different families or recensions of the MSS. of the New 
Testament ; and here, as ^11 along, he illustrates (if he mis- 
takes not) numerous passages, and many various readings, 
which have hitherto resisted the efforts of all critics to ex- 
plain them." * 

• Preface, pp. viii.-xi. \ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



PALEOROMAICA. 127 

On these grounds chiefly he raises his visionary structure, 
which, if true, vould go far to endanger the whole fabric of 
Christianity. His learning is evidently considerable, but his 
love of paradox would seem to be still greater. The work 
was regarded, on its first appearance, as dangerous, and im- 
mediately occasioned a considerable controversy^ 

In the British Critic for January,. February, and April, 
[1823,] a long and able article combated the main positions 
of the PjJaBoromaica. In the course of the same year, it was 
attacked by Bishop Burgess, in the Postscript to his Vindi- 
cation of 1 John V. 7 ; by the Rev. J. T. Conybeare, in his 
'^ Examination of certain Arguments in Palseoromaica " ; by 
Dr. Falconer, in the " Second Part of the Case of Eusebi- 
us"; and by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, in his "Examina- 
tion of the Hypothesis advanced in a recent Publication, 
entitled PalsBoromaica." 

The last is the ablest and fullest exposure of the fallacy 
and absurdity of the whole scheme. The author, however, 
fiar from being discouraged by the number and weight of his 
opponents, again took the field against them all, in a " Sup- 
plement to Palaeoromaica, with Remarks on the Strictures 
made oh that Work by the Bishop of St. David's, the Rev. 
J. T. Conybeare, the British Critic ; also by the Rev. W. G. 
Broughton, and Dr. Falconer." 1824. 

To the second "Postscript" in this publication, Mr. 
Broughton replied in 1825. And the whole subject was 
again brought into review by Dr. Maltby, in a visitation ser- 
mon, entitled, " The Original Greek of the New Testament 
asserted and vindicated." Such is the present state of the 
PalaBoromaican Controversy. It is very curious as a display 
of ingenuity, and as affording another proof that the text of 
the New Testament is capable of bearing any ordeal to which 
it is possible for the learning or genius of man to put it. 



dbyGoogk 



128 CONTROVERSY U&PECTDiG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Having nodoed the work iUelf, and the disoussioo iriiicli 
it occasioned, I mast state how it came to b^ cqpnected with 
the dbpate about the Heavenly Witnesses. The author oon- 
siders the disputed verse a specisaeD of transl^cm from Latin, 
and therefore one of the supports of his aiiguq»efit for the 
Latin origin of the New Testam^it The following passage 
contains the suhstanoe of his theorj on this part of his suliject. 

" A still more appropriate example of the origin of reoen- 
eions, arising frcHn a diversitj of versions Gtwx the Latin, maj 
be given from an interpolation in the Greek New Testament 
itself. In lus two first editions ci the New Testameni, Eras- 
mus omitted ihe &mous verse, 1 John v. 7, conoeming the 
three heavenly witnesses, but inserted it in his later edidons 
on the authority of a Oodex Britannieus^ Tliis Oi>d» JBHl 
is supposed to be the Ood. MontfortieoMU or DubUnenm, one 
proof of which is, that the text of the third edition of £k*aa^ 
mus, printed in 1522, agrees verbatim in this interpdated 
passage with the Dublin MS., while it differs from all other 
edidons, except sueh as were copied from kseU, Nor does it 
differ only from the usual text, but (as Michaelis observes) 
^is written in Mich Qreek as manifesUy betrays a transla*- 
tion fr'om the Latin.' I shall transcribe the intdbpolated 
words as they exist in the three celebrated editions of the 
New Testament 

" Ood, Montfort. and Edit. Erasmi iertia, oHni 1522. 

^ cv ny ovpcoM^y trartfp, Xoyoc, luu nP€VfJLa dyioy, Kai ovroi ol rptis 
€P €ivu Koft Tpgit «urt9 ol luipirvpawfrtt Of tq yjj* 

" * Here (says Michaelis, ii. 286) the article is omitted be* 
fore the words expressive of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
because there is no ardcle in the Ladn, and it occurred not 
to the translator that the usual Greek was 6 m/mfp, 6 Xoyoc, 
ro wpofiuu He has also tr 17 y^, which is false Greek for fm * 
n^r yrjs, because he found in the I^tdn in Urrd.* 



dbyGoogk 



PALEOROMAICA. 139 

^jEJdttio Stepkani iertia^ cmni 1550. 

^ cy r^ ovpavc^, 6 irarrip, 6 \oyot, «em ra &y^o» irvrvfia, km ovtoi 
cl rp€t£ €P n<ru Km Tp€if turtv ol ftaprvpovvret & rg yrj. 

" Here Stephens, or rather, as Dr. Marsh obetjnres, Eras- 
mns himself, in his two last ediiao&s, has modelled the rerse 
Mnto l)etter Greek hy the iosertion of the artide.' Still, 
however, we have the Latiniam ew rji yff. It has heen proved 
irreiVagahlj by sereral critics, that the Complateniaan edi- 
tors trandated also the above verse from the Latm, and ki- 
terpolated it into their Greek text. ' And it is no more tlian 
justice (says Porson) to allow that they at least did tlieir 
work Hke workmen. They made good Greek of their Latin, 
— a task to which the translator of the Lateran Decrees, 
and the writer of the Dublin MS. were unequaL' This Com- 
plutensian text is as follows : — 

^Editio Comphttensis, anni 1514. 

** ey r^ ovpav^, 6 irarrip, km 6 \oyog, mu ro irptvfta dycov, luu ol 
Tp9t9 us TO iw 9ta%. Km rptig ei0ty o2 fiaprvpaupTtt twi TrjS yffs, 

"In tbe above text, translated from Latin into Greek, we* 
have a specimen of three di^rent recensions arising from 
three different versions from the Latin ;. or, at least, from two 
immediate versions from that language, and an improvement 
upon one of them by modelling it into better Greek. This 
improvement is produced, in the first place, by an insertion 
of the articles. I formerly [p. 297] endeavored to account 
for the non-existence of the dual number in the Greek Scrip- 
tures, from the drcumstance of its non-existenoe in the Latin, 
whence our Vulgate Greek copies may have been translated ; 
and, in like manner, as the articles are wanting in the Latin 
language, there is usually a deficiency in this respect in every 
^teral Greek version from the Latin. Thus, as we have seen 
above, we have in the Dublin MS., and in the edition of Eras- 
mus, which was derived from it, iran/p and Xoyor and irvtviui 
6* * 1 



d by Google 



130 CONTBOVERSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

without any article. It is stated by Ei-asrans, in one of his 
Apologies, in speaking of his first edition, ' In calce Apoca- 
lypsis in exemplari, quod turn nobis erat untcum^ nam is liber 
apud Grseoos rarus est inyentu, deerat unus alque alter versit$. 
Eos nos addidimus secuti Latinos Codices.' Wetstein, who 
quotes this passage, remarks, 'Aocuratins tamen omnia ri- 
manti satis constat, non, ut Erasmus scribit, perpauca fuisse, 
quae ipse ex Latinis utcunque et festinanter Grsece reddidit, 
sed a vers. 16 ad finem libri sex integros versus. In istts 
enim omnibus Erasmi editio abit a Codicibus MSS., et ita 
quidem, at Graeca ipsius non obscurum sit ex Latinis fuisse 
conversa. Hinc enim profecta est perpetua ilia omissio ar- 
ticulorum vers. 16, /Stfa pro i} ptC<^; Xafiwpos pro 6 Xafinpo^: 
vers. 18, irpo^i/reias fiiffKiov pro rris vpo^tfrtias rov PiffKtov, 4w 
piffkuj^ pro €P T^ ^t/SXi^ bis ; vers. 19, PiftXov pro tov Pi^itov ; 
{orjg pro Tfjs Com;;; ^oXeoos dyiar pro tij^ iroXcoor ttjs dyiai.'"* 

This, it must be confessed, is ingenious; but though it 
should be proved that the disputed passage wa«? first trans- 
lated into Greek by the Complutensian editors, or the writer 
of the Dublin manuscript, the argument of the Palaeoromai- 
ca in favor of the Latin origin of the New Testament would 
by no means follow, as I suppose the disputed verse is the * 
only passage in this particular situation. The author is 
aware of this, and therefore supports his hypothesis by other 
arguments, which it is no part of my business to answer. 
Those who wish to enter fully into this curious, and not un- 
interesting controversy, must consult the works on both sides 
which have been enumerated. 

Having noticed several works in which the subject of this 
memoir is incidently discussed, we come now to the latest 
6t^ pf this important controversy, in which Dr. Burgess, 

• Pp. 411-416. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



BURGESS. 131 

formerly Bishop of St David's, but now of Salisbury, makes 
the principal figure. Considering the learning and talents 
'which had previously expended their resource and power 
on the merits of this question, a wew aspirant to the honor 
of fi^nally determining it might be expected to possess more 
ijfinfx ordinary claims to the attention of the literary republic. 
Dr. Burgess was veil known as a highly respectable clergy- 
man ; and as a prelate he was venerable ibr his years and his 
moderation. But bis publications had been numerous rather 
than profound; neither distinguished by superior erudition, 
nor any particular traits of *geniu8 and originality. 

In 1820, the Bishop published a volume of tracts on the 
Divinity of Christ, in which he expressed himself in favor 
of the disputed passage, and enters into a short argument in 
support of his opinion. But nothing in this tract requires 
paiticular notice. 

In 1821, he commenced his labors in support of the testi- 
mony of the heavenly witnesses^ by publishing "A Vindica- 
tion of 1 John V. 7, from the Objections of M. Griesbach : 
in which a New View is given of the external Evidence, 
with Greek Authorities for the Authenticity of the Verse, 
;not hitherto adduced in its Defence." In this pamphlet he 
endeavors to 'show that Griesbach's judgment on the text is 
precipitate, partial, contrary to his own rules of criticism, 
and untenable ; — that Bengelius's conviction of its authority 
rested not on one argument, but on many; — and alleges that 
various reasons, which he assigns, may account for the loss 
of the verse in the ancient manuscripts. He argues that its 
abeeiice from manuscripts now extant is no proof of its spu- 
rionsness, if it can be proved it was ever read in the most 
ancient Greek manuscripts. He maintains, on the authority 
of Cyprian, and the ancient Latin version, that this was the 
case. He argues both froqi the internal and external evi- 



dbyGoogk 



Iffl CONTBOVEBSY USPSCTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

d/eacB m sapport .of the eommoa reading, and liaa eviABBtif 
arriyed at a very tfaoroagh oonyiotioD of its geniuoeBess him- 
self. Of Grriesbach be says : — ^ 

^The substance of M.<^h4esbach's Diatribe oonnsts of these 
positions: — that the oontfoverted verse Is not Hound in any 
Greek mannsoript extant bnt one, and Aat a very recent 
manuscrq^t of the fifteenth or sixteenth eeotnry; tint it is 
not quoted by any of the Greek &then; and that it res^ 
diiefiy, if not soldy, on the authority of Yi^os TlspaeaBis. 
I have efaown that he k mistaken in the last of these pesi- 
tions. He is also nnstaken in the age of the Di^in nsanu- 
script) which Ih*. Adam Qarke has shown to be a manmoript 
of the thirteenth oentory. If the'vene has not yet been 
fbond in any other Gre^ mannseript^ it may hesBaAer. 
The Ejfmn to Ckres had beai lost for sixteen eentttries, when 
it was discovered in a manuscript at Moscow, land that man- 
uscript written as late as the end of the fourteenth oenlairy. 
If the verse is not quoted by any of the Grreek fiithers, it fa^s 
been by two Latin f^th^s, who are more aMiant than ai^ 
. Greek manuscript of the New Testament that is now ex- 
tant" ♦ 

On the internal evidence of the verse be saif s j ^r^ 
^ Emesti and Hordey were decided in their ofMniea of its 
authenticity by the internal evidence. And ^ongh Gries- 
bach m his Diatribe on the verse dismisses this eridisncai as 
1 said before, hastily and oontemptaously* yel he no4 only in 
his general rule for judging of the trae reading of a passage 
gives ihitjent place to the interna hauiiai ef iha te^ bat on 
another occasion, in estimating the value of Cadex PanUn. 
17. in his Symboke CritiosB, he tal^s the internal evidence 
for his chief guide. Nay, in the Pie&ce te his lutei^ vari^ 
hb Comm^tarius Criticus in Nov, Te^ Part U., he repre 

t yindiciitloo, 2d «4it, p. 99. 



dbyGoOgk 



BUBCffiSS. 133 

tents the u:^ of MSUS« aod bis disttDetUm of xecepsions as 
of very tscomhry coosideratloa, io comparison with the inter- 
na ver€e/alswve kotioHU indtma. I shall accordingly, in the 
following pages, reverse tiia method of inqnirj into the an- 
^matkiif ^ the verse vhieb he observed in his Diatnbe. 
I shall fii^ ooosidi^ the internal eykieoce, and then the e;^- 
temal ; und riiaU tnke a new view of its ^extern^ hi^ory by 
dividing It i»to three pmods: (1.) From the death of St. John 
to the end <i the thAi^ ci»twy ; (S.) From the beginning of 
the Irarth oentmy to the ^d of the ninth ; (3,) From the 
beginning of the tenth to the date of the Complutensinn, or 
first printed editimi^ 19 the sixteenth ceniury ; and shall apply 
to the two first periods two Greek authorities not hitiiet to 
iddoeed in dffeniae of the verse."^ 

In speaking cm the external evidence of the verse, to 
"wimh the l^b<^ •U^;ea Cirie^)ach has done much injus- 
. tio% he refers to two or three a;dditioi]fal Greek evidences of 
great anttqnity which he had to adduce. From this the 
rettiiieat might be led to expect the testimony of some newly 
discovered mamiseriptSy or the undoubted reading of some 
andent Greek fath^:s» Btkt no such thing: the Bishop has 
nothing of t]ie kind to produce* His evidence is nothing but 
hypothetical argumeiDt and suj^xMaiiion, from beginning to 
end. In the first pmod of the Bishop's distribution no 
manusoripts whatever now exist. This absence of all evi- 
defice his Lordship ewverts into positive evidence in- favor 
of the verse. 

*»I» the view which we have taken of this first period, 
everytbkig is fhvc»i^le to tibe authenticity of the controverted 
Terse. The interned evidence requires the verse ; there is no 
iKPt^mtd evidence ogainst it; ibr there is no manuscript ex- 
iNit 80 aooieBt k» this period; «nd we hi^ve good evidence 

« VimlicatioD, pp* 108, 109. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



134 CONTBOVERSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

for it in the testimony of the Latin version of this period 
preserved by the African Church; beside the probability 
arising from the rejection of St John's Epistles by the AlogL 
These evidences cannot be invalidated by the absence of the 
Terse from manuscripts of a later period; nor is it incumbent 
on the defenders of the verse to account for its last, or for 
the silence of the Greek fathers ; though the former may be 
accounted for from the homoeoteleuton, if not from the muti- 
lation of this very Epistle by those who wished to sever the 
humanity of Christ from his divinity; and the latter from 
the reasons given by Bebgelius, and lately by Mr. Nolan, in 
his view of the Subjects of religious controversy during the 
six first centuries." ♦ 

His reasoning respecting the second period is of the same 
novel and extraordinary character. 

** In the second period of the external history of the verse, 
which comprehends six hundred years (A. D. 301 - 900), 
while the clear light of the internal evidence continues in aSl 
its force, the external evidence assumes a somewhat different 
character. In the former period there was €io external evi- 
dence against the verae ; in this there is some ; but at the same 
time there is some for it: negative evidence against the verse, 
and positive for it. AU the Greek manuscripts extant of this 
period omit the verse. But they are so few (not more than 
four) as to bear no proportion to th6 hundreds, perhaps thou- 
sands, that are lost, many of which might have contained it, 
as some, we know, did. 

" There can: hardly be a doubt .that the seventh verse was 
extant in the Greek in the copies of WalafHd Strabo ; and 
none at. all of its existence in .the time of the writer of the 
Prologue to the * Canonical Epistles.' Walafrid- Strabo, who 
lived in the ninth centliry, wrote a comment on the verse, 

• Vindication, pp. 122,' 123. 



dbyGoOgk 



BURGESS/ ' 135 

and the Prologue to the Epistles. He could not, therefore, 
be ign^ant either of the defects which the author of the 
Pn^ogue imputes to the Latin copies of his day, or of the 
mUgrity of the Greek, as asserted by him ; and he directs 
his readers to correct the errors of the Latin by the Greek. 
The testimony of the Prologue is very material to ho^ 
points."* 

The Bishop's assertiiMis respecting the Greek copies of 
^rabo, and. the Prolc^ue to the Epistles of John, are totally 
Yoid of foundation, as bo^}i Person and Marsh had success- 
fiilly shown ; yet on this untenable'position the Bishop goes 
on to argue, that he ^ had 'arrived at a certainty that the 
controverted verse was extant in Greek manuscripts of the 
sixth Qt seventh century." He sums up in the following 
manner : — 

^ The authority of the African Church, as witnesses to the 
authenticity of 1 John v. 7, is not diminished by the allego- 
lies either of Augustin or his follower, Facundus. Nor is 
tiie validily o^ that testimony lessened by its being delivered 
*m Latm instead of Greek. That the Latin Church was in 
possession of the Greek teit, we tnow from TertuUian's ap- 
peal to the UteriB autherUica of the Apostles, (whether auto- 
graphs or copies is of no consequence,) and the authenticum 
GrtBcwn of St Paul, in the second and thiri centuries ; from* 
tiie writer of the Prologue to the Epistles in thQ sixth or 
seventh century, and from Walafrid Strabo's references, in 
the ninth century, to the Greek text as the standard for cor- 
reethig the imperfections of the Latin." f 

It is deeply to be regretted that so respectable a person as 
the Bishc^ of St. David's should have undertaken a cause 
in which he so entirely fails; especially as he attaches so 
much importance to the question, and speaks so confidently 

• Pp. 123, 124. - t Pp. 189, 140. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



196 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

of kb saooess in establighing the daims of the paasago. 
Beaftoning more ansatiBfactory has rarely ever been eoa- 
pk)yed on a critioal and tbe^ogical suhject; and both the 
evidence and the doctrines of revelatioa are affected by Avuik 
a method of defending them. 

The Bishop met with an opp(»ient worthy of him and of 
the cause which he espoused, not in a Unitarisui or a Disseater, 
whom he appears to have considered the dii^ opponents <£ 
the verse, but in a ieamed member o{ his own church, and 
in a journal distinguished for its high-churoh principles and 
spirit. In the Quarterly Be view for March, 1822, there ap- 
peared a very able arUde on t^ Bishop's pamphlet In thi3 
critique his Lordship is treated witb great courtesy and r^ 
spect ; but his evidence is entirely swept away, and his argu^ 
ment utterly demolished. 

From the manner in which tins article is written, arising^ 
necessarily from the nature of the work in which it appears, 
it is very difficult to separate the parts of the ai^ument, so 
as to give any accurate view of tlw point and bearing of the 
whole. It glances at tiff controversy between Por^on and 
Travis, notices the work of Nolan, and exposes some of its 
mistakes, objects to the mode of argument adopted^ and 
sanctioned by Dr. Burgess, adverts to his attack on Gries- 
bach, and to Middleton's objection, which we have already, 
noticed. It then closes with the Bishop on the subject^ of 
the external evidence, and the new testimony which bis Lord- 
ship adduces. After replying to several points, — 

" The next authority appealed to is that of Cyprian, ^upon 
whom,' as Mr. Forson jus^y observed, ^ the whole labor of 
supporting the verse is devolved.' In the treatise De Uni' 
tote EcclesicB, by that father, we read as follows : * Dixit 
Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus ; et iterum de Patre et 



dbyGoogk 




QUABTIEBty REVIEW. 137 

Fffio ^ Spirita Saaeto sciiptam est, Et bi ti«8 traum sani.' * 
Hiis passage presents by ^air the strongest eyidence that has 
beea adduced in favor of the v^rse. Hie expresnoB,* ^ aerip- 
tom est,' eertainlf nnplwB that the words wtnch foUow, ' £t 
hi tres unuD) sant,' were extant in Scr^ture ; and, eonneckKi 
as they are with the mention of the thwe persons of the 
Trinity, the natural eondusioa ^eems to be, that reference is 
made to the sevendi verse of thk chapter. Yet all who are 
obnyersant with &e writings of the fathers mnst be well 
ftware that their scriptural quotations are, lor the most part, 
made from memory, and withoot that formai exactness wliich 
we now reqmre. In tlie present instance, Oyprifm may havie 
had the above^eited passage of his master Tertullian in bis 
mind, especially as he uses Filius (as TertuUiap did) and not 
Vitf bum ; he may therefore easily have oonfbandsd the * qui . 
tres uBom sunt ' of tiiat passage with the < hi tres tmum 
aunt* of &e eighth verse ; under ^ub impression that Tertul- 
Man interpreted the ei^th verse ef the Trinity. It is quite 
certain ihi^ Facun^s oonoeived ^e passage in Cyprian to 
refer to the eighth verse. This, indeed, the Bishop of St 
David's admits ; but opposes to Faeundus the anthority of 
Fulgentius, who also quotes the same passage, and represents 
him as citing the eeven^ verse. Mr. Porsoa contends, that 
Fulgentius, by his own eonfession, became acquainted witli 
the seventh verse solely by ^be means of Oyprian ; bat we 
are far from bdng convinced by the learned {ffofessor^ lui^gu- 
ments on this subject In our opinion, which yet may be 
plausibly disputed, &e legitimate inftreace from the words 
of Fulgentius is, that he had the verse in his eopy of the 
liatia versioo. It does not, however, follow that he was 

• [That Ui^** The Lord has said, / and the Father are one ; and again 
it is written coneeming the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, And these 
three are ofM.**'-*EP-] 



d by Google 



138 CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

correct in soppoBing that Cyprian quoted the seventh verse. 
We have stated the difficulty attending the passage in Cyp- 
rian ; and the • question for the reader's consideration i,^, 
whether the evidence which it supplies on the side of the 
verse he so weighty as to overbalance the grea4 mass of evi- 
dence in the opposite scale.".* 

This, the Bishop will admit, is candid. It concedes there 
is difficulty respecting Cyprian ; but afler all, it leaves .the 
matter in great doubt wheth^ Cyprian really refers to the 
. passage. It is perfectly absurd to found the authority of an 
important sentence of the word of Grod on such a basis. In 
reference to the novel part of the Bishop's argument, the fol- 
lowing passage in the article is quite conclusive : — 

** We now proceed to consider the Right Reverend author's 
new Greek authorities, of which, however, the first had been 
noticed by Mr. Nolan (p. 568), viz. * the rejection of the 
writings of St. John by certain heretics of tjiis (L e. the first) 
period, whom Epiphanius calls Alogi, on account of their 
denial of the Apostle's doctrine of the divinity of the Logos, 
or the Word.' Lardner has denied the existence of any 
heretics so called. But Lardner, it may be thought, was 
biassed by his peculiar opinions. Let us, therefore, grant 
that such heretics did exist, and that they rejected tlie First 
Epbtle of St. John. Does it follow, as a necessaiy conse- 
quence, that 1 John v. 7 is genuine ? Is not the very first 
verse of the Epistle sufficient to account for the rejection ? 
Mr. Nolan, at least (p. 569), thinks that it is even more 
strongly opposed to the peculiar tenets of the Alogi than 
the disputed verse. 

" With respect to the other Greek authority produced by 
the Bishop of St David's, fix)m the Pseudo- Clemens Alex- 
andrinus, which he connects with a passage in Tertullian, w© 
♦ Quarterly Beinew, Vol. XXVI. pp. 883, 888. 



dbyGoOgk 



QUARTERLY REVIEW. 189 

•can scarcely persuade ourselves that ihe learned prelate 
places any confidence in such a witness to the genuineness 
of the text in question. In return, however, for this * au- 
thority,* we will present the Bishop and our readers with a 
short extract from a work printed in Potter's edition of Cle- 
mens: The work is entitled Adumhraitones ; and is sup- 
posed hy learned men to be a translation, by Cassiodorus, of 
some Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, by Clemens 
Alexandrinus. * Iste est, inquit, qui venit per aquam et san- 
guinem ; et iteruro, quia tres sunt qui testificantur ; spiritus, « 
quod est yfta ; et aqua, quod est regeneratio ac fides ; et san- 
guis, quod est cognitio : et hi tres unum sunt In Salvatore 
quippe istae sunt virtutes salutiferse, et vita ipsa in ipso filio 
ejus existit' We do not ascribe any great weight to this ex- 
tract, because there is much uncertainty respecting both the 
author and the translator of" the work from which it was 
taken. Our principal reasons for adducing it are, that the 
testimony of Cassiodorus (to whom the translation is attrib- 
uted) has been urged in defence of the 7th verse ; and that 
the extract affords a singular confirmation of Mr. Porson's 
conjecture with regard to the reading which Cassiodorus 
found in his copy of St John's Ep\^tle. — Letters to TVavis, 
p: 351. 

" On the whole, it appears that the external evidence in 
favor of the verse, during the Bishop's first peijod, is reduced 
to the authority of Cyprian. Still, however, the learned pre- 
late thinks that there is cause to triumph, inasmuch as the 
same period exhibits no evidence against the verse. What 
evidence of this kind can be required ? It is admitted on all 
hands that there i§ no Greek MS.'extant, so old as this peri- 
od: but we have two MSS. of the fourth century, which, omit 
the verse ; and may we not justly infer that the MSS. from 
which they were copied omitted it also? Again, the verse has 



Digitized 



byGoogk 



140 CONTBOVEBST BESPECTING 1 JOHN' V. 7. 

not been quoted by any of the Greek fathers of the second 
and third centuries. Does not this fact alone furnish strong 
presumptive evidence that during those periods it was not m 
ezistenc§ ? Can it be expected that pasi%ages should be pro- 
duced from their wrilii^ exi»^sly affirming the sporioois- 
nees of the verse, that is, the ^uriousoess of a verse, of the 
exist^iee of which they were utterly ignorant? " * * 

No part of the dis<ms8ion cm this important subject hia 
been more strenudusly contended for on the one hand, or 
more resolutely resisted on the otber, than the alleged au- 
thority of Strmboy in the Glossa Ordxruiria^ which Archdea- 
con Travis and Dr. Byrgess maintam was written in the 
ninth centmy, and whichy it is alleged, furnishes unquesticm- 
able evidence of the auihen^city of the text. After quoting 
a passage from Travis to this efiect^ the present writer thus 
proceeds : -^ ' • 

^'It is wdl known to the learned in these matters, and may 
easily be ascertained by those who will take the trouble to 
inquire, that the tide of Walafrid Strabo to be considered as 
the author oi the Gkesa Ordinaria is, to use Mr. Porson^s 
phrase, 'exceedingly questionable'; and that still more 'ques- 
tionable' is his right to the Commentary on the Prologqe io 
the * Canonical Epistles.' Our present intention, howeyer, is 
io prove that Walafrid ^tcabo certainly wA4 not the au- 
thor of -the Q^itence quoted in the preceding statement, — 
a sentence from which so many consequences are deduced. 
That sent^roe fcnms Hht conclusion of a short tract which is 
prefixed to the Ohisa Ordinana, and entitled ' Translatores 
BiUiffi.' Had Mr. Travis taken the precaution o£ reading 
the entire tract, he would have found that the writer, in his 
account of the Septuagint translation, quotes, as his authority, 
a person whom he caUf * Magister m Hiat^uriia.' Tbis appd- 

• Pp. 888, 884. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



QUARTESLT BEVUSW. |4L 

klioa had beeo given to Pbtbus Coscestob, who floafished 
ia the lifter part of ipB twelfth o&atwrjf and wrote a history 
of the Bible under the tiUe of Histona Sohohsti^a. The 
tmct in qnestion, therefore, oouM not have l^ofia written bj 
W^laind Strabo^ who Hved in the ninik century. What now 
heoomes of Mr# Travis's argnment founded on the ancient 
Greek M8S. which had been examined with the most critical 
i^zactneai bj Walafrid Strabo ? . 

^As much importance bus, by several writers, been at- 
tached to the^ suj^poaed testimony oC Walafrid Strabo, we 
have taken some pains to ascertain the real /uithor of the 
tract from which Mr, Travis drew his quotation. We have 
JAOW before us an edition of the Vulgate Bible, wi^ the Glos^ 
sai and the Exposition of ]fi^ich(das de Lyra, printed at Yen- 
lee by FagninuSy in the year 1495. Prefixed to the work ia 
a letter addressed to Cfudinal Francis Picolhommi, by Ber- 
naxdinus Gadolus^ Brixianua Li this letter Gadolus de- 
. scribes the great care and diligence which he had employ edy 
at the request of Pagninus, in preparing the edition; and 
eoncludes with the following sentence : ^ Conscripsi prsete* 
i?ea, siv#ex multb anctoribua et prsocipue ex Hieronymo 
Qxoerpsi, tractatulum de Libris Bibliae Canonieis et non Ca- 
nonicis ; qui si tuae reverendissiraak dominationis judicio, cui 
omnia subjicio, comprobatus fuerit, earn ad utilitatem legeo- 
tium imprimi permittam; sin nimis (1. minus) cellala conti- 
nebitnr."^ Then follows the Tract alluded to in the letter, 
entitled De Libris Cationieis et rmn Oanonici*; to which is 
8id>joined the Tract entitled TVanelatores BibiUm^ which fur- 

* [That is:— "I hftve alsa writteil, or rather I hav^ dxtreeted from 
maDj aatbon, and e^teoially from JerooM, a-emall treatise eonoemiag the 
canonical and nnoanonical books of the Bible; and if this shall be ap- 
proved by the judgment of yom> Most Reverend Lordship, to whom I 
submit eyerything, I will allow it to be printed for the benefit of reaeders ; 
otherwise it shall be retained in my cell/' — £d.] 



dbyGoOgk 



142 CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

nished Mr. Travb with his quotation. If any of our readers 
will take the trouble of examining these two tracts, we are 
convinced that not one of them will hesitate in attributrng 
them to Jbhe same pen. In both, the style of compoeition i» 
precisely the same, and the same authorities are shaded to, 
viz. Origen, Jerome, Magister in Historiis. We most, there- 
fore, conclude that, instead of affording a proof of the criti- 
cal attention of Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, Mr. 
Travis's quotation will be found to attest the editorial dili- 
gence of Bernardinus Gadolus at the close of the fifteenth."^ 

So much for Strabo, and the Glossa' Ordinaria of the nin^ 
century, which we apprehend have now received their quietus 
forever. It is very worthy of remark, how Divine Provi- 
dence ^mishes the means, not only of maintaining the au- 
thority of the true Scriptures, but of destroying the pretences 
of what is false and apocryphal* We shall quote one more 
short passage from this able article, before {H*oceeding to the 
next stage in the controversy. 

"Some persons may be disposed to ask, — if, on the one 
hand, the agreement of the existing Greek manuscripts in 
omitting the verse affords a presumptive proof th# it was 
omitted in the earlier manuscripts from which they are 
transcribed ; and so on, till we arrive at the autograph of St. 
John, — does not, on the other hand, the agreement of the 
great majority of the* manuscripts of the Vulgate in exhib- 
iting the verse equally imply that it existed in the earlier 
Latin manuscripts, and, ooftsequently, in (he original copy of 
the Latin version ?■ To this question we will reply by simply 
stating the circumstances of the two cases ; first with regard 
to the Greek, and then with regard to the Latin manuscripts. 
On the Greek manuscripts we adopt the language of Mat- 
thai : — * Praeterea, bona fide testor, me in nullo codice hoc 

• Pp. 836, 887. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



BUBGESS. 143 

loeo fUuram ^eprehendisse, nee hujus loci ^uHum vestigium 
aBunadvertisse, nee in marginibus codicum, nee in scholiis, 
H^ee ifi catenis ; cum tamen ad manus mihi fuerint tres codices 
eoiii scholiis ineditis orthodoxbrum Theologorum, et unus, 
com catena nov^decim nobilissimoruxo £celesiaB GrsBCSB Pa- 
tnuOt 8»culo ix scriptus/ * (Matthdi ad loc,) On the Latin 
manusoipts we remark: — The more ancient of* them omit 
the verse: those mimttscripts in which it appears, represent' 
it under very different forms ; some having the seventh verse 
before the eighth, and some after. In some manuscripts the 
seventh verse is found only in the margin ; and in a very 
hargie portion the concluding clause of the eighth verse {et hi 
tr$s unum 9UfU) is omitted. From this comparative view of 
Uie state <^ the Greek and Latin manuscripts, as to the con- 
toov^rted text, we leave our readers to draw their own con- 
eludons. In our own judgment there is but one conclusion 
that can fairly be drawn." f 

As an ailx41iary to the cause which he so warmly espouses, 
Bishop Burgess published, in 1822, a small volume of Latin 
tracts, with the following title : ^^ Adnotationes Millii auctse 
et correctse ex Prolegomenis suis, Wetstenii, Bengelii, et Sa- 
baterii, ad I. Joan v. 7. Una cum duabis epistolis Richardi 
Benileu et Observationibus Joannis Seldeni, C. M. Pfaffii, J. 
F. Buddei, et C. F. Schmidii de eodem loco," &c. As this 
is merely a collection of tracts written in support of the dis- 
puted passage long ago, containing no new argument, it re- 
quires no further notice. The Bishop's object is to show, that 

♦ [That is: — ." Moreover, I testify in good faith, that in no manuscript 
have I found any erasure in this place, nor have I discovered any vestige 
of the passage either in the margin of manuscripts, or in scholia, or in ca- 
tenae; though I have had at hand three manuscripts with unpublished 
■eholi& of orthodox theologians, and one, written in the ninth century, with . 
a catena of nineteen of the noblest fathers of the Greek Church." — Ed.] 

t Page 889. 



dbyGoOgk 



144 GONTBOV£BST BfiVSCnKG 1 JOHK V. 7. 

aU the learned, at kast, hate not abanclcMied the deiteeeal 
the passage. 

Um Lprdship prodoeBd, in 1833» a seooail edftiea ef U» 
YindicatiQn, to which are adde^ ^ A Pi^efiice in vi^f lo !te 
Qoarterlj BerieWi and a Postaor^ i» afiawer te » neMR- 
Publication, endtled, Palnoreuaica." Hie proftee is the 
onlj thing 'ia this p^iblicadcM^ beside as ad¥«1i86BKnt of 
forty-^wo pages^ with whioh we have now to dor it eensisl^ 
of six^-eigfat pages. In this the Bishop pfofesses to meet 
the Qiprterlj Beriew; but in reality never doses With the 
main argument of the controversy* Thei^ is » gieae ^ktA 
ci petty skirmishing, — a kunsr portion of cknt ndsed; h«t 
little done to satisfy the objector, of to refieve the s otyi g t si 
ihe dififtculties under which it lahofs* His Loi?ifchip stilt 
maintains, with a positiveness that m vety extfaotfdhuuy^-^ 
*^ That whUe we kaoe tnu^ fotitimf emdtnm fof th§ 1009^ 
there is NO positive evidence AdAnrsrr rr*'* 

It is strange, in the present advanced stage of biblical lit- 
erature, ihat it should be asserted there is no posidve evi- 
dence against a sentence purporting to belong to the Bible, 
which is to be found in no genuine manuscript, and unsup- 
ported by the ancient versions. Can his Lordship require to 
be informed, that the only posidve evidence in support of a 
passage of Scripture is its existence in authentic copies ? If 
this be departed from, on the ground that we admit one verse, 
we may admit a hundred ; and thus the whole evidence and 
character of revelation might be dianged. The Bishop still 
continues to reiterate and defend his two new authorities, and 
actuaUy adduces aome ottiera* Bol they av«r all- of the sane 
questionable^ character ; witnesses which do^ not admit <^ 
cross-examination. These authorities are Diodorus, accord- 
, ing to Theodorns ^agnosta^ and quoted by Saidae. Maik 

• Page 15. 



dbyGoogk 



BUBGESS. 145 

^e roundabout way in which we are flirnished with his tes- 
timony ; and mark still further what it is. Why, this Diodo- 
rus, who it seems was the Preceptor of Chrysostom, wrote 
on ^e 1st Epistle of John, and on "Unity in the Trinity"; 
from which the Bkhop infers 1 John v. 7 was in his Greek 
copy of the New Testament ! There is really no arguing 
with this kind of evidence, even with the authority of Dor- 
hout to bolster it up. 

' The Bishop has another new authority, Dionysius of Alex- 
midria. Bat this is no better than the former. The disputed 
▼erse is not quoted by Dionysius, nor any argument founded 
upon it in his writings. If "remote conclusions may be thus 
drawn at a jump," there is scarcely anything, however 
destitute of foundation, which may not be proved or dis- 
proved. 

In the conclusion of this preface^ his Lordship recapitu- 
lates what he considers the substance of his argument, and 
the leading grounds on which the genuineness of the passage 
may be defended. The reader shall have the benefit of this 
statement in his own words. 

"For myself, I adhere, with increased conviction of its 
authenticity, to the declaration which excited the Reviewer's 
^astonishment'; founded on the following reasons, with which 
I recapitulate the substance of this preface : — 

" 1. The connection of the verse with the context, and with 
the general scope of the Epistle ; which Bengelius says, om- 
nem codicum penunam compenscU [makes amends for all the 
want of manuscripts]. 

*' 2. The evidence of the Latin Version, GrcBcis omnibus 
codic%bu9 anUqttior [more ancient than any Greek manu- 
script]. (Bengelius.) 

"8. The testimony of TertuUian and Cyprian, which Mill 
says is abundantly sufficient to authenticate the seventh verse; 
7 9 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



146 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

Ucet in nuUu omnino ab iHo tempore in kunc usque diem ex- 
emplaribus oomparuerit [even if it has been found in no 
copies from that day to this]. 

" 4. The testimony of Fulgentius, who places beyond all 
doabt Cyprian's cUrect citation of the seventh verse, 

^5. The testimony of Eucherios and Cassiodoms, who 
quote both verses. 

" 6. The testimony of the African Bishops, instar centeno' 
rum codicum, qui opCimne notte sunt seculi V, [equivalent to 
that of a hundred of the best MSS. of the fifth century]. 
(Dorhout.) 

^*7. The quotations or allusions of the Greek fathers, 
Clemens of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Basil, 
Athanasius the younger, Diodorus, the preceptor (^ Chry- 
sostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, and the Greek Scho- 
lia. 

" 8. The testimony of the Prologue of the Canonical Epis- 
tles to the Greek text of the 7th verse, extant in the time oi 
the writer. 

^' To these positive reasons for the authenticity of the verse, 
we may add the following, negative arguments. 

** If there are no Greek manuscripts but one,ybr the verse, 
cifter the end of the third century, there are no Greek man- 
uscripts against the verse before that time. 

*' If no Greek fathers quote the Greek texty (which cannot 
be admitted,) no Latin heretics object to the ZcUin texL The 
Greek Churdi objected to the insertion of Filioque in the 
Latin Creed, but never to the text of the seventh verse in 
the Latin version. 

" If no Greek father quoted 1 John v. 7, no Greek father 
quoted 1 John v. 20 during the first three centuries, or 1 Tim. 
iii. 16 during the first four."* 

* Burgess, pp. 66 - 68. 



dbyGoOgk 



OXLEE. 147 

In further prosecution of what the Bishop appears to have 
raade a considerable part of the business of his latter years, 
he published, in 1824, " A Selection of Tracts and Observa- 
tions on 1 John v. 7." This, like his Latin collection, is a 
useful compilation. It consists of Bishop Barlow's letter 
to Mr. Hunt, now first published from a manuscript in the 
Queen's College Library, Oxford ; Bishop Smalbroke's Let- 
ter to Dr. Bentley, with Dr. Bentley's Answer; Extracts 
from Martin's Examination of Emlyn's Answer relative to 
that Letter; the Notes of Hammond and Whitby on the 
controverted Verse ; and Dr. Adam Clarke's Account of the 
Montfort Manuscript. 

Though it is convenient to be furnished with all these 
tracts in one volume, they throw exceedingly little light 
upon the controversy. The testimony of one undoubted 
manuscript of the New Testament, or a correct quotation of 
the passage in any ancient Greek writer, would be worth a 
whole host of opinions of modern writers, however learned 
and ingenious. 

Prefixed to these tracts are an introduction and preface of 
seventy-two pages, by the Bishop himself, in which various 
points in the controversy are adverted to, and some account 
given of the several tracts which are introduced ; but in which 
I do not observe anything which calls for particular observa- 
tion. 

In the same cause, so warmly espoused by Dr. Burgess, 
two other combatants, on opposite sides, appeared about the 
same time. The first of these, Mr. Oxlee, of whom some 
notice has already been taken, produced " Three Letters, ad- 
dressed to the Rev. Fred. Nolan, on his erroneous Criticisms 
and Mis-statements in the Christian Remembrancer, relative 
to the text of the Heavenly Witnesses ; in which are con- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



148 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

tained, also, Strictares on the Yindicatioa of the spurious 
Passage by the Bishop of St. David's : together with a new 
Translation of the genuine Text, proposed and defended from 
every cavil," 1825. 

The other, under the fictitious signature of Ben David, 
addresses ^ Three Letters to the Editor, of the Quarterly 
Review, in which is demonstrated the Genuineness of the 
Three Heavenly Witn^ses," 1825. 

To Mr. Oxlee's remarks on Mr. Nolan we have already 
adverted, in noticing the work of that able and ingenious 
writer. We have here only to do with his strictures on the 
Bishop of St David's. We are sorry to say, that they are 
written in a tone and manner more resembling the spirit of 
Porscm, than the temper which always distinguishes Dr. 
Burgess in his controversial works. Mr. Oxlee, in his sec- 
ond letter, endeavors to refute the arguments adduced by 
Mr. Nolan and Dr. Burgess for the authenticity of Jerome's 
Prologue to the Catholic Epistles: and in the third letter he 
introduces what he considers a clear and connected view of 
the text and its context His amended translation has been 
already given, with some of his remarks in its support It 
is due to Mr. Oxlee, perhaps, to give another extract from 
his ingenious pamphlet, in which he supports his views of 
the reading of the text, by arguments derived from the con- 
nection. 

'^ To me the immediate connection of the three witnesses 
with the sixth verse appears to have originated from a nat- 
ural association of ideas in the mind of the holy Apostle. 
Having asserted that the Spirit giveth testimony, because 
it is the truth ; he quickly calls to mind, that, as the Holy 
Spirit bearing witness within us, is the truth ; so also are the 
Word, or the Son, and the Father, the truth ; and so equally 
concurring witnesses with the Spirit itself, which proceeds 



dbyGoogk 



OXLEE. 149 

from them both. The conjunction Sn, therefore, as Grotius 
has weU observed on this text, has not so much a causative 
ns a continuative and argumentative signification ; and con- 
sequently, as well here as in other places of the Syriac ver- 
»i(Mi, it is rendered by the simple copulative: and in the 
Armenian Version is wholly omitted. The connection of 
the sense is as though he had said, — Nay, there are even 
three, the Father, the Word, or the Son, as well as the Spirit, 
who are attesting witnesses of the water, the blood, and the 
spirit, by which Christ came to erect his holy church ; and 
these three are for one thing, that is, are accounted cir r^ ep 
tn^t^ for one imd the same Spirit; the same Evangelist 
having elsewhere dedared, that God %$ a Spirit If then we 
x^eceive the testimony of men, such as John the Baptist, who 
testified of Christ, that he had descended from heaven, as the 
Son of God, to baptize with water and the Holy Ghost, — 
if, I say, we are willing to admit such human testimony as 
this ; the testimony of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost, unto whose name every Christian man is 
baptized, and who dwell inseparably in the hearts of the 
faithful, is still greater and more to be depended on, in that 
they are the truth itself, and cannot possibly deceive us." 

The pamphlet certainly abounds in very able and ingenious 
reasonings, and displays no small portion of literature ; but it 
is offensively warm. There is little occasion for the odium 
theologicum in a discussion, which, it is now well understood, 
does not affect the doctrine of the Trinity, whichever side 
gains the ascendency. Criticism may be erroneous, and mis- 
takes may be unintentionally made, but they ought to be op- 
posed with calmness and firmness: and where men of so much 
eminence rank on different sides, a degree of modesty is more 
becoming than fierceness and dogmatic confidence. To Mr. 
Oxlee I shall have occasion to advert once more. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



150 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

The author of Ben David, the late Dr. Jcmes, was a Sor 
ciDian, and a man of considerable genius and learning, bat 
fond of paradox. A defence of the disputed passage from 
such a quarter naturally suggests strong suspicions that there 
was something under it. 

^ Timeo Danaos dooa ^rentes.** 
His object is to prove that the disputed verse forms ihe sub- 
ject of the whole Epistle, and that the true sense places its 
genuineness beyond all reasonable 8us[Hcion. In his first let- 
ter he endeavors to show that the object of the First Epistle 
of John was to check the Gnostic heresy, which maintaincid 
that the Creator is an evil, imperfect being, and that Christ 
was a Grod, either dwelling for a season in the man Jesus, or 
an empty phantom in his shape. The design of John, there- 
fore, was to overthrow the divinity, and to assert the simple 
humanity of Christ ! 

In the second letter he gives what he conceives to be the 
scope and sense of the passage, "There are three bearing 
testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Hokj 
Spirit; and these three are one." — "The meaning, then, is»" 
he says, " that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, 
which are in heaven, bear testimony ; and tlrase three testi- 
monies are one testimony ; or, as it is expressed in the paral- 
lelism in the next verse, agree in one testimony. The testi- 
mony meant is that which it is the burden of the Epistle to 
prove, namely, that Jesus is the Christ ; meaning, in op^ 
position to the Antichristian teachers, that the man Jesus, and 
not a Grod dwelling in the man Jesus, or in the emj^y form 
of the man Jesus, is the Christ." 

The object of the third letter is to prove the authenticity 
of the verse; in which, as might be expected, there is an 
entire failure. He acknowledges that he has no new evi- 
dence to adduce, and his hypothetical arguments and reason- 



dbyGoogk 



BURGESS. 151 

ings are unworthy of any attention. If Ben David wrote in 
jest, he deserves the severest reprobation ; if in earnest, his 
folly deserves our pity. 

Bishop Burgess published, in 1825, "A Letter to the 
Clergy of the Diocese of St David's on a Passage of the 
Second Symbolum Antiochenum of the Fourth Century, as 
evidence of the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7." This creed 
was drawn up by a Council held at Antioch, consisting of 
ninety-seven bishops, of whom nearly half were Arians. 
After the declaration of faith in one God, our Lord Jesus, 
and in the Holy Ghost, the Creed adds, i>s elvai rj fitv vno- 
araati rpco, rg bi irvyaj>iafiq, iv, '^ So that they are three in 
person, and one in consent." There is, no doubt, some simi- 
larity between this passage and 1 John v. 7 ; but similarity 
and identity are very different things. It is as plain as possi* 
bie that the words of the Creed are not a quotation from the 
disputed text. And although his Lordship argues that there 
is not a greater difference than sometimes obtains in the quo- 
tations made from the Old Testament in the New, we do not 
think he proves his point, as scarcely any of the words in the 
two passages are the same. Had the passage existed in the 
text of John at the time, it is too plain and too important 
not to have been quoted verbatim et literatim, instead of be- 
ing only alluded to. I cannot perceive that the cause of the 
authenticity of the text gains anything from the Antiochian 
Ci-eed. 

In a large postscript, his Lordship endeavors to adduce 
evidence from the accounts given by Euthymius and .Socra- 
tes of the- origin of the Arian controversy, in support of his 
view of the question. The reasoning, however, of Porson 
on this subject, from page 119 to 226 of his letters, I do not 
conceive the Bishop has at all affected. It is not only not 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



152 CONTBOVEBSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

evident that Eath3amiis quotes the passage ; but highly prd>- 
able, as Porson shows, from another part of his works, that 
it did not exist in the MS. he used. " So far," says Porson, 
** therefore is Euthyraius Zigabenus from having employed 
this weapon against the heretics, that, on the contrary, it is 
plain he never had it to employ. It was not to be found in 
the shops of those artificers of faith, who furnished him with 
the materials for his Panoply^ 

A considerable portion of the postscript is occupied widi 
replying to Oxlee's Three Letters to Mr. Nolan. In this 
portion of his pamphlet his Lordship adduces another Grreek 
authority, — a Greek MS. too. What a cvpiyica would re-- 
sound through the world if this document was forthcoming. 
But, alas ! it b only something which was seen : when looked 
for again it was not to be found, — and is now gone. Suah 
seems to be the fate of all the evidence of which the sup- 
porters of this passage boast But hear the Bishop : ^ 

" I must not here omit an important accession to the direct 
evidence for the verse, which I add on the authority of the 
present learned Rector of Lincoln College, in Oxford. Hav- 
ing heard it reported, that a Greek MS. of the New Testa- 
ment containing the verse had been known to be extant in 
the library of Lincoln Cdlege, not many years since, and 
that the Rector of Lincoln had spoken of it in, St. Mary's 
pulpit, I wrote to the learned Rector on the subject, and re- 
ceived the following answer : •* Porson's book never shook my 
conviction of the authenticity of the important verse, which 
has so long and laudably engaged your indefatigable study. 
The artful and superficial way in which he treated the inter- 
esting subject, and his unmannerly behavior to Mr. Ti*avis, 
brought me some years ago into St. Mary*s pulpit, with a 
sermon upon the disputed text ; which sermon I have mis- 
kud, and cannot find. What I said about the MS. that I had 



dbyGoogk 



QUARTERLY REVIEW. 158 

seen, which contained the verse, I cannot accurately state. 
It was a MS. in the College Library, and seen in the pres- 
ence of Dr. Parsons, late Bishop of Peterborough ; but on 
looking for it when I preached the sermon, it was not found, 
nor can it be found at the present time." ♦ 

When this manuscript is produced, it will be time enough 
to examine its character and pronounce on its pretensions.t 

To the Bishop and Ben David the Quarterly replied in 
an able and very respectful article in their Sixty-fifth Num- 
ber, for December, 1825. Here the learned Reviewer, after 
6ome introductory remarks, combats his Lordship's assertion 
sSter Travis, "that the verse was extant in the Greek in the 
copies of Walafrid Strabo," by showing that there is no evi- 
dence that Strabo understood Greek, or that he was the au- 
ihiur of Glossa Ordinaria, or that he was the author of the 
Commentary on the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, and 
that the Preface to the Glossa Ordinaria, in which he directs 
that the Latin MSS. should be corrected by the Greek, in- 
stead of being written by him, was written some centuries 
after his death. This is one of the Bishop's main positions, 
— at best it would not prove a great deal, but it really van- 
ishes into smoke when touched by the finger of critical inves- 
tigation. There are some good remarks in the article on the 
impropriety of preferring the Latin to the Greek fathers, a 
tendency whidi the views and classification of Griesbach has 
tended to produce. On the internal evidence which is sup- 
posed to be in favcMr of the verse, and the alleged grammatical 
difficulties of the passage, on the supposition of the seventh 

• Barges8*8 Letter, pp. 84, 86. 

t [Scrivener, in his Plain Introdnction to the Criticism of the Text of 
the N. T., (1861,) p. 469, not«, remarks: " There can be no question that 
he meant Act. 88, which does not give the verse, but has long been Icnown 
to have some connection wfth the Codex Montfortianus, which does^ See 
ttlso the Vindication of Person by Onto CarUabrigiensiSy pp. 868, 869. — Ed.] 
7* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



154 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

verse being sparions, some good obserrations occur ; particu- 
larly on a passage remarkably similar, from Gregory Nazi- 
anzen. The learned critic also offers some defence of Porson, 
in reply to several of the remarks of Dr. Burgess on that 
eminent scholar. The Bishop's Letter to the Clergy of St. 
David*s is satisfactorily shown to contain nothing that will 
bear the test of close examination, or on which a defence of 
the passage can be rested. The notice of Ben David is lit- 
tle more than an intimation that he is not in earnest on the 
subject, and must have smiled on finding the Bishop of St. 
David's so much concerned to defend a passage no longer ca- 
pable of support on sound critical principles. The whole 
discussion in the Quarterly Review is highly interesting. It 
is carried on very dispassionately, and with great for<5e of ar- 
gument. I regret that my limits will not allow me to quote 
several parts of the article ; but the following passage, con- 
taining an answer to the Bishop's argument founded on the 
Symbolum Antiochenum, deserves particular attention. The 
Bishop's argument has been already given ; the reply is con- 
clusive. 

"In justice to the cause which the Bishop defends, we 
think it right to state, that, his Lordship having communicated 
the substance of his work to several of his right reverend 
brethren, the preceding argument appears to have had great 
weight with them. In letters from which we are fevored 
with extracts, the Bishops of Winchester, Durham, and 
Hereford, together with other prelates, whose names are not 
mentioned, have expressed themselves either as almost, or as 
entirely, persuaded that the verse is genuine. With the sin- 
cerest respect for the learning and judgment of these emi- 
nent persons, we shall now venture to examine the argument. 
The^ are three in person, and one in vonsent^ — savors much 
more of an illative distinction of the fourth century, than of 



dbyGoogk 



QUABTEBLY KEVIEW. 15$ 

a simple dictum of the apostolic age. AceordiDglj, the 
Bishop is obliged to omit * the terms by which the quotation 
ia disguised,' before he can imagioe the expression to be de« 
rived from Scripture. And when the sentence has gone 
through this process, what remains ? Not, as his Lordship 
states, the three are (me ; but they are three indeed^ but also 
one (a>r tivai rpia ficv, cv dc). Now, without being fastidious 
as to the gender of the numeral {rptis or rpta), we affirm that 
this is not a quotation of 1 John v. 7 (pi rpfU hf cJ^t), — a 
sentence of a totally different form. But this is not ail. 
The words 80 that, which introduce the expression they are 
three in person, and one in consent, would lead us to suspect 
that the sentiment is an inference from some scriptural au- 
thoi-ity just preceding ; whereas we are to suppose, from the 
Bishop's statement, that the avowal of a belief in the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is immediately followed by the 
expression, so that they are three in person, and one in consent* 
Let us therefore refer to the creed itself, as it appears in the 
translation given by his Lordship. 

" ' We believe in one God and in one Lord Jesus 

Christ and in the Holy Ghost, who is given to believ- 
ers, for consolation, and sanctification, and perfection, ac- 
cording to our Lord Jesus Christ's direction to his disciples, 
saying, €ro ye unto all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;^the Father be- 
ing truly a Father, the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Ghost 
truly a Holy Ghost ; the names being given not vainly and 
unmeaningly, but accurately expressing the respectire sub- 
sistence (or person, \m6<n'a<nv), order, and glory of each of 
those named (t»v ipofiaCoiMvmv) ; so that they are three in 
subsistence (or person, viroarda-fi) and one in consent,* — 
(p. 104.) 

" And thus it i& as clear as words can make it, that the ex- 



dbyGoogk 



156 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7- 

pression, TTiey are three in subsittence (or person), tmd one 
in consent, is not a quotation of 1 John v. 7 ; bat is derived, 
solelj and entirely, from the baptismal commission in St 
Matthew. We have seen many weak arguments in defence 
of the verse, but we trust his Lordship will excuse us if we 
frankly say, that an argument less effective than this it has 
never been our lot to meet with." * 

From the ability and learning displayed in this last article 
of the Quarterly Review, in which the arguments of Bishop 
Burgess are most triumphantly met, it might have been an- 
ticipated that the Controversy was drawing to its dose. Bat, 
alas, how vain human expectations frequently prove I The 
debate, judging from publications that have recently ap- 
peared, seems as far from a termination as ever. And, in- 
deed, on the plan on which it is now conducted, it may go on 
forever. This memoir, therefore, is likely to close, while the 
warfare still rages. But as every important argument on 
each side has already been noticed, the review of the remain- 
ing publications will be as brief as possible. 

From the conspicuous and decided part which Professor 
Porson took in this Controversy, his name has been more or 
less mixed up with all the discussions which have since taken 
place. One great object of Bishop Burgess, in his various 
publications, h$A been to diminish the general confidence of 
the* literary republic, not in the scholarship of Porson, for 
that it would have been vain to touch, but in the accuracy of 
his acquaintance with biblical manuscripts, and the correct- 
ness of some of his data and reasonings in this celebrated 
Controversy. The Bishop charges that distinguished scholar 
with "mistakes," with unfounded opinions respecting the 
'* genius of the Greek language," with making " disingenuous 

* Quarterly Review, Dec. 1825, pp. 101, 102. 



dbyGoogk 



CBITO CANTABBIGDENSIS. 167 

quotatidiis* Witt ^'detfcient knowledge of the^ Crre^k fkthei's,'^ 

It is not durprising, therefore, that among the friends, (xt 
disciples, or admirers of Person, dome one should step for- 
ward in his defence. It was due to his character, as a scholar 
of the first order, as a <5ritic distinguished for his acuteness 
and his comprehension, and for the fearless honesty with 
which he avowed and defended his opinions, that bis reputa- 
tion should be vindicatei^ from unmerited chaises. He has 
met with a vindicator in all respects worthy of him, and of 
tte cause which he has undertaken to defend, — one whom 
Porson himself would have been pleased to acknowledge as 
a fnend and a coadjutor, t refer to the author of the fol- 
lowing work : ^- 

*"A Vindication of»*the Literary Character of Professor 
Porson, from the Animadversions of the Right Rev. Thomas 
Burgess, D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. P.R.S.L.- Lord Bishop of 
Salisbury, in various Publications on 1 John v. 7. By On- 
to Cantabrigiensis. Cambridge, 1827.'* 8vo. Report ascribes 
this learned and able volume to the Rev. Dr. [Thomas] 
Turton, Regius Professor of Divinity in that tJniversity.* 
He who studies the articles in the Quarterly Review, and 
Crito Cantabrigiensis, will not, 1 apprehend, be very wide of 
the mark, if he ascribe both to the same individual. But 
the writer, be who he may, is of less importance than the 
book ; though, certainly, he has no reason to be ashamed of 
this production of his pen. 

The discussion is throughout conducted in the most gentle- 
manly and delicate manner. In his mode of carrying on the 
Controversy he has improved greatly upon Porson, as there 
scarcely ever occurs an expression calculated to wound or of- 

* [Afterwaids (1842) Dean of Westounster, and (1S46) Bishop of Ely.— 
Ed.] 

Digitized by LjOOQ IC 



158 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

fend. He is calm and dignified ; but firm and condusive in 
all his reasonings. I regret that it is impossible to do any 
justice, even to the bare statement of his argument. The 
work is by no means restricted to a defence or vindication 
of Porson ; on the contrary, it embraces the whole range <tf 
the Controversy, and discovers the author's fiimOiarity with 
all its ramifications and details. Tlie conclusion of the vol- 
ume, in which Crito vindicates Person's qualifications as a 
Scripture critic, is all I shall quote as an illustration of the 
style and manner of the author, rather than as a view of the 
contents of his book. Those qualifications are thus called in 
question by Bishop Burgess. 

" The numbers in array against the verse are not so nu- 
merous as the advocates for it No one country has entered 
so frequently and fully into this inquiry as our own. And 
(excepting living writersj who is there to oppose to the learn- 
ing of Selden, Pearson, Hammond, Stillingfleet, Wallis, Bull, 
Mill, Waterland, and Horsley ? I do not except Mr. Porson, 
when opposed to the great names before mentioned, on such 
a subject as our present^ which does not admit the exercise of 
that peculiar sagacity which distinguished his conjectures on 
the text of the ancient Greek Poets, and the laws of Greek 
metre, and the peculiarities of Greek idiom; but requires 
other aids of learning, human and divine, in which Pearson 
and Bull had no superior. Mr. Porson, indeed, brought 
nothing new to this inquiry but what is, in a great degree, 
extraneous to it, — ^ his wit^ and humor, abd dexterity in ex- 
posing the inaccuracy of his opponent. He has brought no 
objection to the passage, which had not been anticipated by 
Sir Isaac Newton, Whiston, Emlyn, or Dr. Benson." ( Vind, 
p. 57.) 

" When Mr. Boyle mentioned some eminent writers, whose 
sentiments he stated to be in accordance with his own,. Dr. 



dbyGoogk 



CBITO CANTABRIGIENSIS. 159 

Bendey replied, — that, *if such were their opinion, yet it 
signified nothing, — for he went not by authorities but by 
truth. If they believed so, they were certainly mistaken.' 
We know, indeed, that scholars of high character have fre- 
quently judged erroneously of ancient works. ' What clum- 
sy cheats,' as the same .great critic remarks, * those Sibylline 
Oracle^ now extant, and Aristeas's story of the Septuagint, 
passed without control, even among very learned men.' Sel- 
den, the first writer on Bishop Burgess's list, founds an argu- 
ment in Chronology upon the Letters of Phalaris, as if they 
had really been written by the Tyrant : — shall we, on that 
account, hesitate to reject them, as spurious productions? 
Peaa^on draws up a long and learned note to vindicate fhe 
orthodox reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. After employing, on that 
occasion, principles of criticism which would overturn 1 John 
V. 7 in an instant, he quotes the latter incomparably more 
dubious text, without a word in its support : — can that be a 
reason why we should uphold it ? — The learAing of Ham- 
mond, Stillingfleet, Wallis, and Bull is readily acknowledged; 
but if any one will examine their observations on the contro- 
verted text, he will find that but a scanty portion of it has 
been brought to bear upon that point : — and what is their 
autJwrity compared with the arguments of Mill and Benge- 
lius ? — Waterland is said to have become a convert to the 
opinion that the verse is genuine, in consequence of Twells's 
defence of it, — a story which, for the credit of Waterland, 
is, I hope, not true : — but what has Waterland produced in 
behalf of the verse ? — Pearson and Bull, indeed, are the 
champions, whose very presence is deemed sufficient to put 
an end to contention ; and I cannot but suspect that, while 
his Lordship is contemplating Pobson on one side of the 
question, and those great men on the other, a feeling gradu* 
ally comes over him somewhat similar to that which pre- 



dbyGoogk 



IdO CONTBOYEBfrT BESFEGTINQ 1 jJOHK Y. 7. 

▼ailed at the Council of Tr^it, — a sort oi horror at the idea 
that ' Grammarians slumld take upon them to teai^h Bishops 
and Divines.' ^ rem tndignamy said the adversaries oi 
£rasmus, — No$^ qui jam tat annis tumus Dw^oreg sacra 
TheologuB^ denuo o&gimur adire hidos Uterartos.* 

'< But, aooording to the learned prelate, an inquiiy intQ Uie 
genuineness of this famous text ' does not admit th^e^erdse 
€)£ that peculiar sagacity which distinguished Mr. Pprson ' in 
other subjects. Now surelj there is something verj poi^ir- 
doxical in the notion, tiiat sagacity, however refined, should 
form an obstacle, as it were, to success in any dep^rtmept qf 
literature. If his Lordship had contented himsdf with saying 
tlfeit inquiries like the present do not absolutely requi^p ^ 
extraordinary degree of sagadty, the truth of th^ positiQu 
might, peiiiaps, have been allowed. Much, no doubti that 
is deserving of attenfion, may be accomplished withoift H-' 
But when we consider the expanse over which evei^ a pw- 
tial view of* the subject has actually conducted u^, and t!^e 
dark and dreary regions through which w^ might have b^en 
led, we cannot, I think, but feel the advantages to be derived 
from a critical sagacity like that of Mr. Porspn. The acute- 
ness of his understanding was not confined to ' thp laws of 
Greek metre and the peculiarities of Gteek idiom ' ; and in 
researches into Ecclesiastical antiquity, 77-r where there ^re 
works of dubious origin to be estimated, —r wher^, in pro- 
ductions of which the authenticity is ]indoubtpd, there are 
obscure passages to be illustrated, and corrupt opes to be re- 
stored, — where, in fact, there are discrepancies of all kinds 
to be reconciled, — we may confidently assert that the lead- 
ing qualities of Mr. Porson's mind were exactly those from 
which the world might have anticipated the happiest Results. 

* [That is: — ^'It is a shamefdl thing; we, who for so many years have 
been Doctors (or teachers) of sacred Theolo^, are again sent to schpo^." — 
Ed.] 



dbyGoogk 



CRITO GANTABRIGIENSIS. 161 

" Pearson and Bull deserve all their fame for * learning, 
haman and divine'; but, as they never took a prominent part 
in defence of the verse, why should their acquirements be 
i)rougbt forward for the purpose of throwing those of Mr. 
Person into the shade ? The learned prelate has long been 
acquainted with the Letters to Travis ; he has had th6 nnost 
ample means of discovering their vulnerable points; and he 
has finally selected those, I conclude, which he considered 
the'most open to attack : — and yet I will venture to -affirm, 
that, numerous as are the observations on which he has 
thought proper to animadvert, there is not one instance in 
which Mr. Person appears de^cient in learning, human or 
divine. Of the truth of this proposition the reader has now 
an opportunity to judge for himself. 

** But Mr. Person, it is alleged, advanced no new objec- 
tion to the verse. — His purpose was to state the principal 
grounds of the controversy, and to examine Mr. Travis's 
arguments. He hinted, however, that if anything which had 
not been adduced should occur to him in the course of his 
investigation, he would not fail to bring it to light ; and in 
this he fulfilled his promise. . The truth is, that arguments 
and objections, when urged by him, assume a new character, 
and produce a new effect. He deals not in trite and vague 
generalities. What had before been thrown out in the gross 
is thoroughly sifted, and applied to its proper use. Whether 
intent upon Greek manuscripts, or ancient versions, or early 
fathers, his power of discrimination is constantly on the alert. 
Nothing seems to escape him by its minuteness; and yet, 
whatever subject he is discussing, he places the whole of* it 
before the reader, in all its bearings. Let a man read every- 
thing that had been written on the controverted text previous- 
ly to the time of Mr. Person, and when he has afterwards 
perused the * Letters to Travis,' he will confess that to be the 



d by Google 



162 CONTBOVERSY BESPEdtING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

work from which he has derived the fullest infoimatioA cm 
the subject Such jure the effects of great tal^its, when ex- 
ercised even on common materials^ 

^ There is one quality of the mind, unnoticed by Bishop 
Burgess, in which it may be confidenUy maintained that Mr. 
Person * had no superior ' -— I mean, the most pure and in- 
flexible love of truth. Under the influence of this principle, 
he was cautious, and patient, and persevering in his researdb- 
es; and scrupulously accurate in stating facts as he found 
them. AU who were intimate with him bear witness to this 
noble part of his character ; and his works confirm the testi- 
mony of his friends^ In a word, if, in a GenenU Council of 
Scholars, an individual were to be selected and sent forth 
to take a survey of any region of antiquity, profane, or ec- 
clesiastical, it is quite certain that the pers(m who should be 
found to possess Mr. Forson's endowments would command 
every vote." * 

It would have been pleasant to have taken leave of the 
Controversy with this very beautiful piece of writing and ar- 
gument. * But traiisitions ar^ common in this world. From 
the summits of Parnassus it is not uncommon to be at once 
precipitated into the bogs and quagmires which surround its 
base. Crito Cantabrigiensis produced a literary curiosity, — 
a Reply to a book before it was published; which enabled 
Crito to notice, in the answered book itself, the answer by an- 
ticipation. In acting thus, the author has given the chief 
proof which he has furnished of his wisdom ; for it was cer- 
tainly much easier to answer Cilto before he appeared, than 
it would have been afterwards. "A Specimen of an in- 
tended Publication, which was to have been entitled, a Vin- 
dication of them that have the rule over us, for their not 

* Pp. 341-848. 



dbyGoogk 



HUYSHE. 163 

•having cut out the disputed Passage, 1 John v. 7, 8, from 
the Authorized Version. Being an Examination of the first 
BIX Pages of Professor Porson's IVth Letter to Archdeacon 
Travis, of the MSS. used by R. Stephens. By f^rancis 
Huyshe. London. 1827." 8vo. 

The ^tie-page alone of this singular, but vaporing pam- 
phlet, I should think would satisfy most readers of the au- 
thor's .competence for the task he has undertaken. I appre- 
hend, whether Mr. Huyshe is aware of it or not, that the 
time has passed away when " those who are over us " had 
an exclusive right to determine what is or is not the Bible. 
Does the man know that he lives in the nineteenth century ? 
Has he so little acquaintance with " the march of intellect," as 
to be ^maware that the auUkority of the whole bench of bishops 
fs, in such a question, not worth' a straw ? But to the ques- 
tion, ^- Mr. Huyshe has paid some attention to it, and, had he 
possessed a portion of sobriety of mind, might have written 
what would be worth reading ; but he so revels and riots in 
the subject as to excite serious alarms for^ the soundness of 
his intellect He defends ^ Stephanus," and his text too, 
with some ingenuity, though without success, and with little 
advantage to the apocryphal text He deals about charges 
of " ^Isifying, bandying, and gulling," at a great rate ; and 
" flays and sj^its open " the false charges preferred by Gib- 
l>ori and Person, and so ably answered by Travis and Burgess. 
What is more, he threatens the world with another visitation. 
But let his advertisement tell the story of his recent adven- 
tures, and of his future exploits, — 

" And when he next doth ride abroad, 
May we be there to see." 

" This publication is occasioned by an advertisement in the 
newspapers, which announced that we might expect a De- 
fence of Mr. Porson against Bishop Burgess, by Crito Can- 



dbyGoogk 



164 CONTBOVEBSY BESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

tabrigiensis. Mj veneration of the abilities and acquke- 
nients of Mr. Porson is unbounded: ^fortj thousand' sons 
' could not, with all their quantit)r of love, make up my sum/ 
I can speak of him only, as Dr. Parr does, ^ Bidiard Porson, 
Tov wopv Bavfuurrov.* But if you talk of ' an invincible love 
of truth, an inflexible probity,' you sap the foundation of my 
idolatry ; and he stands within the prospect of comparison 
with his blundering correspondent The reader has before 
him a specimen of my reasons for saying, that, if the world 
was ti^en captive by him at- his will, his own understanding 
did not bow to that wilL And I have to make my grateful 
acknowledgments to Crito Cantabrigiensts, for his irresistiUe 
excitement to this part of my proposed work ; as the wh<de 
probably would otherwise have been deferred till the night 
Cometh when no man can work. Should he think this not 
sufficient to establish my opinion, he shall have more of H; 
and he shall have it too, upon the Complutensian edition, and 
the Ravian MS. ; upon Erasmus's third edition, and the MS. 
that was sent to him from England ;• upon the kindred read- 
ing discovered in the Montfortian MS. ; upon the West Afri- 
can recension ; and above all, upon the internal testimony of 
the passage, — till he cries, 'hold, enough.' But 1 am not 
without my hopes that the favor conferred upon me by Crito 
Cantabrigiensis may be repaid by my saving him the expense 
of paper and print ; and I feel confident of being allowed to 
doze out whatever may yet remain of the evening of life 
without interruption from any other quarter. I have not to 
learn the truth of what the Trojan lady said, 

\oyo5 yap €K t abo^ovprmp uav 

ILCLK TWP doK0Virr<OV aVTOS OV TaVTOV (r$€V€l» 

And I am satisfied with thus publicly entering my protest oo 
these heads ; and with having furnished a dew, by which any 



dbyGoogk 



OBJTO ^ASTABBIGJEHSI3. • 165 

PB^ w^o will use 4 little iqdustry may extricate himself from 
HM labyrinth of fraud, which nearly two centuries have now 
b«e9 constructing round Stephanus and the received texV^* 

So iQuch impprta^ce did th^ author attach to his perform- 
imc0, «Tr oothing, by the way, peculiar to Mr. JEIuyshe, — that 
he transmitted it, with a printed circular, to all ^' those who 
have the rule over Urn*" This was like a dutilul ^on of the 
Ch]ird]u We dare say that most of their Lordships would 
l4l6w hun " to doz^ out the romiains oi the evening of his 
life," without interruption cm their part, always excepting the 
ever-wat^ful Bishop of Salisbury ; who certainly would not 
£Bdl to acknowledge the iservices of Mr, Huyshe. Onto is, in 
'his usual My}e, Yery dvil, but very pointed* Whether he 
i^ givea Mr* IJuyshe his quietus, I cannot say, but two 
years hav9 passed since he last roused himself; from which 
we should hope that the old gentleman is dozing on his eve* 
ning very pleasantly. Peace be to his slumbers I May they 
be lastiiig and undisturbed I 

The following passage, at the end of the Appendix to Cri- 
to's Yiudication, gives tlte sum of the Controversy with Mr. 
Huyahe, and a satisfactory explanation of the whole difficulty 
on w}iich he makes sueh a parade of argument. 

^' We mf^. here, for a moment, revert to the object of all 
this zeal to have it believed that Robert Stephens had two 
set^ of MSS.rr-Mr. Huyshe seeing, distinctiy enough, that 
none of the fifleen marked MSS. contained 1 John v. 7, was 
resolved that Robert Stephens should have MS. authority 
for the verse ; and so, presented him with sixteen additional 
MSS., some one or more of which contained the yerse in the 
form assigned to it by Stephens's press. Now, let us not at- 
tribute to imaginary causes effects which causes known to 
h^ve existed are sufficient to have produced. The fifth edi- 

* Pp. iii., iv. 



dbyGoogk 



166 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

tion of Erasmus was the basis of Robert Stephens's editioas. 
The Complutensian edition, which was a MS. in Stephens's 
estimation, contained the dispute^ passage; and therefbre^ 
with him, was authority for its insertion. Erasmus had 
finally brought the verse into the best shape in which it had 
then appeared; and accordingly Robert Stephens inserted 
the verse, with only one variation ii4hi the text of Eras^ 
mus : — changing rd wevfia dyiop into rd Sytov iTPtvfuiy which, 
as a scholar, he knew to be the better Greek, and, as a critic, 
to be the reading of the Complutensian edition. This surely 
is an easy and obvious method of accounting for Robert Ste- 
phens's proceeding with regard to the verse. 

"In subordination to his grand object, Mr. Huyshe baa 
stated his opinions on a variety of topics, the discussion <^ 
which would lead me beyond the limits I have prescribed to 
myself. Whether Stephens's semicircle was misplaced by the 
collator of the manuscripts, or the compositor of the volume; 
and whether by accident or from design, — whether the MSS. 
were collated solely by Henry Stephens, op by Henry Ste- 
phens with the assistance of others, — .whether Robert Ste- 
phens's MS. /d was one and the same with the Beza MS» now 
at Cambridge, or merely *the same for all critical purposes,' — 
these points, and others of still less consequence, the reader 
will easily forgive me if I do not attempt to determine. It 
may be sufficient to observe that, according to the best of my 
judgment, the decisions of Mr. Huyshe on these subjects — 
^although accompanied by the most unwarrantable reflections 
upon the living and the dead — are not often supported by a 
substantial reason. 

" To conclude, Mr. Huyshe has mentioned the Compluten- 
sian edition, the third edition of Erasmus, the Berlin and 
Dublin MSS., the African recension, and the internal evi- 
dence, — as matters about which he is quite prepared for 



dbyGoogk 



OXLEE. 167 

Gcmtention. Happily, however, he has given the fonn of 
words by which he may be induced to cherish the thoaghts 
of peace. Availing myself, therefore, of that form, I say, 
witii the utmost sincerity, — * Hold, Enough/ " * 

In defence of himself and of his former publication, the 
Rev. John Oxlee published, in 1828, " Two Letters, respect- 
fully addressed to the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, in defence 
of certain Positions of the Author, relative to 1 John v. 7 ; 
in which, also, the recent Arguments of his Lordship for the 
Verse are shown to be groundless Surmises, and evident Mis- 
takes, as well in Church History as in Criticism." To Mr. 
Oxlee's views and labors in this Controversy we have al- 
ready adverted. His Lordship had remarked on the temper 
in which he had conducted the discussion, which was proba- 
bly felt to be the more offensive from the weight of ]\fr. Ox- 
lee^s talents and learning. In the two letters now addressed 
to Bishop Burgess, he defends the ground taken in his former 
Letters very ably and very dispassionately. Every point ad- 
verted to by the Bishop, either in his animadversions on Ox- 
lee, or othef wise, in support of the passage, is discussed and 
shown to be either incorrect or inapplicable, — to be founded 
in ignorance, or to leave out of view some circumstance which 
entirely alters its nature, — the* new evidence, as well as the 
old, is disposed of in a manner that admits not of successful 
reply. The Montfort MS., the Panoplia Dogmatica of Eu- 
thymius Zigabenus, the Complexiones of Cassiodorus, the. 
Critical Edition of Jerome's Version by Vallarsius, the Ve- 
rona, Harleian, Wolfenbiittel, ani other MSS. are shown to 
affbrd no satisfactory -evidence in support of the passage. 
The reasoning of his Lordship respecting the Symbolum 
Antiochenum and Fulgentius is also entirely demolished. 
♦ Crito Cantab., pp. 402-404. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



168 CONTROVERSY RESPECTlilG 1 JOHN V. 7. 

His nodce of Mr. Hajshe is woftby of a place in tbid teh' 
view. 

*• Thotrgh I cannot congratulate hfm on the display eiC&ef " 
of his learning or of his reasoning, nor yet of his modesty, 
it would be extremely invidious not to notice his prudence* 
and his foresight, in endeavoring to secure to Mmself the ad- 
miration of the bishops ; and in furnishing the particulars of 
his address, so that, whenever he shall be Wanted, they may 
know where to find him. The Circular, he may rest satis-^ 
fled, for the sake of this one circumstance only, wifl be care-' 
fully deposited amongst the most valuable of their papers. 
Champions of his calibre, who can dare to penetrate t&e^ 
camp^ of the enemy, and can fetdii away the opima spolia, 
are invaluable coadjutors in the field of controversy; and, a£^ 
the Hookers of their day, are sure to be drawn out of theii* 
retirement, from their little sequestered parishes, in order to 
fight the battles of the Church, and to receive at her handed 
that preferment which she has to bestow, as the reward of 
their prowess. Indeed, it is scarcely possible to conceive li 
design niore worthy of the pencil than this feat, intimated to 
us in the circular, of Mr. Huyshe dragging forth to the lights 
completely vanquished and put in chains, that in^mal do^, 
Professor Porson ; whilst, in another part, we behold the 
OPimA SPOLiA, modestly laid by our champion at the feet of 
the Church ; who, justly proud of her son, is preparing to 
decorate his valor with the first honors at her disposal. 

" Before taking leave of Mr. Huyshe, I would beg to ask, 
on what Christian principle he has attempted to connect the 
defence of the disputed passage with that of the Church ; and 
to treat its opponents as inimical to theit mother ? If I may 
be allowed to state my own case, I can say with much trutli, 
that, in opposing it, I have acted with a view to nothing else 
than to the honor of the Christian Church. The conduct of 



dbyGoogk 



BURGESS. 169 

Ur. Huyshe and his fellow-champions is what the fathers of 
the Church would have universally condemned. They would 
have deemed it a crime of no ordinary magnitude to deliver 
to posterity, for the original sacred text, what they themselves 
had not duly received from their predecessors, nor could 
find in their Greek manuscripts. Their memory is grossly 
insulted by the supposition, that they suffered a text of such 
vast importance in the Trinitarian controversy to be lost 
from their copies of the Greek Scriptures. The character 
of the Church decent as the guardian of Holy Writ is no 
otherwise to be defended, than by denying the possibility of 
such an occurrence taking place. I maintain, therefore, that 
in this instance the opponents of the verse are the true sons 
of the Church ; and that they alone deserve well at her hands 
for having used their best endeavors to remove the interpo- 
lation."* 

I must now hasten to a conclusion of this lengthened series 
of articles, by briefly noticing the remaining publications. In 
the present year appeared, "A Letter to the Rev. Thos. Bey- 
non, Archdeacon of Cardigan, in reply to a Vindication of the 
Literary Character of Professor Person, by Crito Cantabri- 
giensis : and in further proof of the Authenticity of 1 John 
V. 7. By Thomas Burgess, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury." 8vo. 
His Lordship's tenacity of life in this cause is certainly the 
most remarkable feature in his character. He is entitled to 
much credit for the sincerity and 2eal with which he main- 
tains and avows his convictions. But with every disposition 
to respect his motives and intentions, it is impossible to feel 
respect for his judgment after so mudi has been done to pro- 
duce conviction without any avail. His Lordship persists in 
repeating the same things, after they have been explained or 

• Pp. 120-122. 

8 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



170 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

confuted, till his opponents have nothing further to say. la 
the most unaccountable manner, he converts the negative 
evidence in opposition to the verse — that is, its absence 
from manuscripts, versions, and fathers — into positive evi- 
dence in its support ; and on this strange fallacy builds the 
principal part of his whole superstructure of defence. There 
is no arguing with this kind of proof. 

The plan of the Bishop's publications is admirably calcu- 
lated to raise a cloud of dust around the question. It is 
scarcely possible to get a clear view of it, from the mul- 
titude of points which are introduced. For instance, in the 
last publication, we have first an introduction ; then follows a 
series of tables of contents ; then comes a preface of thirty- 
five pages ; after this are forty pages of notes on this intro- 
duction ; we have then the Letter, which, though announced 
as the publication, is literally buried between the introduction 
and the appendix of the work, and is the least part of the 
whole ; after the letter, which consists of thirty-two pages, is 
a postscript of twenty-two pages; and after tantum comes 
another sort of postscript of thirteen pages more. If this is 
not writing "about it and about it" till all men may justly be 
led " to doubt it," we do not know what the tendency of such 
sort of writing and reasoning is. It is injurious to the Bish- 
op's reputation for learning and candor, and much more inju- 
rious to the cause of truth than he seems to be aware of. 

Having, I apprehend, tired my readers, and nearly tired 
myself, I thought here to have shortly summed up and con- 
cluded. But I have just procured and read, with all the at- 
tention and impartiality in my power, a publication for which 
Bishop Burgess has expressed many an anxious desire. On 
which, therefore, I must bestow a few remarks. 

" New Criticisms on the celebrated Text, 1 John v. 7. A 
Synodical Lecture by Francis Anthony Knittel, Counsellor 



dbyGoogk 



KNITTEL. 171 

to the Consistory, and General Superintendent of the Grand 
Duchy of Brunswick Lunebourg. Published at Brunswick 
in 1785. Translated from the original German, by William 
Alleyn Evanson, M. A. London." [1829.] 8vo. All parties 
must feel their obligations to Mr. Evanson for having brought 
out, in an English translation, this curious work. The sub- 
ject seems rather a strange one for "a synodical lecture," 
which I fancy must have been the exemplar of Bishop Bur- 
gess, when he made it the subject of a charge to his clergy. 
That charge, by the by, his Lordship has promised to pub- 
lish ; so that something more may still be expected from the 
fruitful pen of the Bishop of Salisbury. Had IMr. Evanson 
not prefixed a preface to Knittel, he would have consulted 
his reputation as a scholar; had he suppressed the conclu- 
sion of it, he would have consulted his reputation as a man 
of candor and a Christian. That conclusion can sting none 
but the writer himself. Let him reflect on his own consist- 
ency in denouncing the Apocrypha, and yet reading it as 
the lessons of instruction to the Church of God ; protesting 
against its incorporation and circulation among the inspired 
Scriptures, and defending a text as certainly spurious as any 
of the apocryphal books, before he presume to denounce men 
whose character for integrity and zeal for truth are at least 
as well known and as much entitled to respect as his own. 

Of Knittel, after patiently examining his statements and 
arguments, 1 can come to no other conclusion than that at 
which Michaelis arrived, " that he throws no additional light 
on the subject." Apart from the controversy, his work con- 
tains some useful information on various subjects, elicited 
with genuine German industry, and set forth with due parade 
of logic, of learned textual stuffing, and marginal reftrence 
and quotation. Under the head of " Greek and Latin Man- 
uscripts discovered which support 1 John v. 7," I expected to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






'■ft. 





















n 



-0'n> 



'I. 







i^- ^f- •*^»- v*a»^»t ^«^n . o 



'^<^t: 



^»-. 



ve 






i,>>^**N». 












o**'* ^ 
<* 









''^' 4^^>->. ^^'^'Tk"*"^ ^^-l!:i^*> 






'^hL-^ 






"f* th. 






t^i 



jf 



flOf, 



172 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

find something about MSS. which contained the text; but, 
to my great surprise, he refers to three MSS. which, by his 
own account, only swell the number of codices which do not 
contain the passage. On the first of these manuscripts, after 
a great many words, he says : — 

^< This codex augments the list of those which omit 1 John 
V. 7. At the same time I must observe, that the copyist fre- 
quently omits passages of the text of I John, but in such a 
manner as evinces both his negligence and haste; e.g. 1 John 
ii. 22 wants the last words of the verse tov Uartpa km rovYlwi 
in like manner, the iras, with which verse 23 begins, is want- 
ing. Again, verse 27 wants the conclusion, fi€V€iT€ cp ovi^ : 
verse 28 wants the beginning, km wv rtKviai 1 John iv. 16 
wants the conclusion, km 6 Q^os tp avrtp. From these exan^ 
pies, we perceive that the copyist's omission of certain pas- 
sages of the text may have been occasioned, not always by 
the various readings of codices, but also by words of similar* 
sound. Therefore he is not a perfectly mfe vntness in this 
matter:' 

On the second he says : — 

" This codex may be called Guelpherhytanus D. True, its 
testimony, as far as hitherto known, is of very little weight ; 
but still it contains something remarkable, and deserving fur- 
ther attention." 

The reader may accept of these as spedmens taken al- 
most at random from this volume, in illustration of the light 
which is to be found in the " New Criticisms " of the learned 
Knittel on 1 John v. 7* 

Instead of dilating further on this subject myself, I cannot 
better sum up the whole, than by placing before the reacter 
the following luminous view of the facts which have been 
elicited and fully established in the course of this extended 



dbyGoogk 



OXLEE. 173 

discussion. The controversy, I should observe, leaves the 
doctrine of the Trinity unaffected ; has tended to establish 
the authenticity of the inspired writings, and to illustrate the 
powerful evidence by which their genuineness is ascertained. 
But till the following positions are fairly met, and satisfacto- 
rily answered, it is unnecessary to write or read another book 
in support of 1 John v. 7. 

" There are three ways of ascertaining the genuineness of 
any particular text of the New Testament ; — from its being 
found in the Greek manuscripts; preserved in the ancient 
Versions ; or cited and commented on in the writings of the 
fathers. The absence of all this testimony in behalf of the 
hecnoenly witnesses^ your Lordship has been pleased to de- 
nominate the negative evidence against the verse ; whereas I 
am prepared to maintain, that such testimony is the only pos- 
itive evidence which we can have of any passage either now 
being, or ever having been, at any time past, a genuine part 
of the New Testament ; imd that, in proportion as this sort 
of evidence either increases or decreases; the genuineness or 
spuriousness of the passage is rendered more or less doubtful. 

" Thus much being premised, it will be no difficult labor to 
reverse the statement of your Lordship, and to demonstrate 
to the impartial reader, that since the close of the seven- 
teenth century the novelties of discoveries against the pas- 
sage have been manifold and important ; but the novelties 
for it worse than nothing. 

" 1. Great weight used to be laid on the Greek manu- 
scripts made use of by Robert Stephens for his edition of 
the Greek Testament ; but of that argument we now hear 
less and less. By the industry of Lelong, Wetstein, Marsh, 
and Griesbach, most of the manuscripts have , been recog- 
nized ; and afford evidence, not for^ but against the disputed 
text, in that they contain it not. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



174 CONTBOVEBSY RESfEOTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

^2. During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the 
Greek manuscripts consulted, though they all conspired in 
furnishing evidence against the verse, were but few in nam 
her ; whereas, by the indefatigable industry of Dr. Griesbach 
and of other critics of the last century, there are now reck- 
oned up no less than about one hundred and fifty, which have 
been inspected with a special reference to the passage, and 
are known not to contain it ; whilst, for the verse, there is 
still extant only the same individual manuscript from which 
Erasmus, three hundred years s^o, so reluctantly interpolated 
his third edition of the Greek Scriptures. The Codex Ha- 
vianus cannot be considered as an excepticm ; being evident- 
ly posterior to the invention of printing, and even copied 
from the Complutensian Polyglot. 

" 3. By the labor of Mr. Person and other critics, the fact 
has been ascertained, that in no Greek manuscript, hitherto 
examined, are the words i^ r^'y^ found making a part of the 
eighth, and indicating the loss of the seventh verse ; sa thiit 
one chief argument formerly made use of has been wholly 
done away with. 

" 4. The Syriac Version, which in antiquity and authority 
«iay well contend with the Latin, though it made its appear- 
ance without the foisted text, had been printed in a manner 
from one or two manuscripts only ; so that there might still 
have remained a rational doubt, whether at some future time 
the passage would not be found in some of the Syriac as well 
as of the Latin manuscripts. But, within the last century, a 
multitude of Syriac manuscripts, in various parts of Christ- 
endom, have been examined, and still found not to contain 
it ; so that the evidence arising from this most ancient ver* 
sion has become much more decisive than it was. 

" 5. In the beginning of the eighteenth century there came 
forth, edited on the authority of various manuscripts, the Cqp* 



dbyGoogk 



OXLEE. 175 

tic Version of the New Testament. This version, in the opin- 
ion of the learned editor himself, was made from the Greek 
in the beginning of the third century; and since it coin- 
cides, as well in the Saliidic as in the Memphitic dialect, with 
tlie existing state of the Greek manuscripts, it has contrib- 
uted much to the evidence against the disputed text, and that, 
too, within the last century ; Mill being about the first of our 
sacred critics who had the opportunity to mention it. 

" 6. Of the erroneous persuasion respecting its existence 
in the Armenian Version, even till after the time of Mill, I 
have already taken notice. Neither Porson, nor Griesbach, 
nor Marsh professes to have understood anything of the Ar- 
meaian tongue themselves; but they correctly judged that 
the passage had been foisted into it contrary to the authonty 
isi its manuscripts. In my Letters to Mr. Nolan I have 
«fibrded, what your Lordship will not easily find elsewhere, 
some more certain information respecting the state of the 
Aimenian'text; and have there demonstrated its evidence 
to be not for^ but wholly against the authority of the verse ; 
and that its appearance in the printed edition of Uscan was 
, an interpolation from the Latin. 

" 7. The Philoxenian, or later Syriac, is another indepen- 
dent version ; and wholly distinct from the Simplex, It was 
made at the first, probably, from manuscripts of the fifth cen- 
tury ; and afterwards collated with others a century or two 
later. Since the translation is highly literal, it has pre- 
served to us, with the utmost certainty, the state of the Greek 
text at the time of its being made. It retains, however, no 
trace of the heavenlt/ witnesses; and, as the whole of this 
version of the New Testament was not pubHshed till within 
these thirty years, it may well be con^jidered as novel evi- 
dence against the verse, and that in the coui*se of the last 
century. 



dbyGoogk 



176 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

^ 8. I profess to have no acqaaintance with the Slavonio 
Version mjrself ; but to the learned its history is not un- 
known : that it was made from the Greek towards the dose 
of the ninth century ; and afterwards either amended or re- 
translated, in the thirteenth or fourteenth, by Alexius, the 
Metropolitan. In this version from the Greek, as well as in 
all others which have the least pretensions to antiquity, the 
text of the heavenly witnesses is said to be absent ; and, since 
all the critical inquiries into the state of the Slavonic are of 
a very recent date, its evidence against the passage must be 
regarded as another novelty within the period prescribed. 

" 9. Before the commencement of the preceding century, 
the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles was universally be- 
lieved to have had Jerome for its author. Neitlier Sodnus 
nor any of his immediate followers ever dared to question its 
authenticity ; and, though they objected to the text oi the 
heavenly witnesses^ they were constrained to acknowledge 
that at least Jerome, the ablest critic of the fourth century, 
had publicly defended it* But since the works of Jerome 
have been more accurately and critically edited, that docu- 
ment has been judged to be the forgery of some sophistici^r 
of the sixth or seventh century; and there is scarcely a critic 
to be found, since the time of Mill, who has not added his 
voice to that sentence of condemnation. Behold, then, with- 
in the last hundred years, another novelty against the verse ; 
and .that of great weight and importance. 

" 10. It is equally well known to the learned, that, before 
the close of the seventeenth century, the books to Theophi- 
lus, in which the passage under dispute once or twice appears, 
were usually ascribed to Athanasius, whose title they bear 
before them. But since the publication of the Benedictine 
edition of his works, in which these spurious tracts are more 
pointedly condemned, and separated from the genuine, the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



OXLEE. 177 

authority of Athanasius for tbe verse has ceased to be brought 
forward. 

^11. In all the more ancient Latin tracts containing any 
trace of it, including the books to Theo|^ilus on the Tripity, 
and the Liher adversus Vanmctdum, there are circumstances 
attending its insertion which clearly indicate that the writers 
themselves were wholly ignorant of its existence as a text of 
Scripture; whilst, as I have shown in. my Letters to Mr. 
Nolan, they Ornish the very best evidence against its au- 
thenticity, in that the words are adduced, not as the very 
language, but only as the demonstrated sense of the lan- 
guage of St John. 

'* 12. The supposed citation of it by Fulgentius is an ar- 
gument on whidi, up to this very hour, great stress has been 
laid. But^ in my Letters to Mr. Nolan, I have alleged 
some strong reasons to prove, that for its appearance in the 
Mesponsia contra Arrianos we are probably indebted, not to 
any knowledge which the learned father himself had of the 
text, but to the dexterity of Cochlaeus. I have been in- 
formed of a late edition of the works of Fulgentius, printed 
at Venice, in 1742 ; the editor of which professes to have 
collated manuscripts, &c, but I have not been able to pro- 
cure a copy of it To that editor, then, the reader must be 
referred for more satisfactory information on the point at 
issue ; and, if he find^ nothing more in its behalf than the 
authority of the eddtio prtnceps of Cochlaeus, the supposed 
testimcmy of Fulgentius must take its place beside that of 
Jerome, as bdng equally bottomed in fraud and mistake. 

^ Such, my Lord, are the novelties or discoveries against 
the verse in the course of the last century. They are of 
such a nature as to leave its advocates not so much as one 
firm prop on which to rest their defence ; and have fairly re- 
duced them to the dire necessity of fetching from the works 

8* L 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



178 CONTROVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

of the fathers a few coincidences of thought and expression, 
which they would be happy to palm on our credulity for allu- 
sions to the text. To one* already conversant in the history 
of this dispute, a minute detail of what has been going on 
may seem tedious and void of interest; but the extraordinary 
statement of your Lordship, that the cumulative evidence of 
modern date had brought nothing important against the verse, 
in addition to the materials of Sandius and Simon, was not 
otherwise to be refiitfed than by an appeal to these facts." * 

After the preceding sheets had been printed, and published 
in the work in which they originally appeared, I received an- 
other pamphlet on the controversy, which bears strong evi- 
dence of proceeding from the pen of Crito Cantabrigiensis, 
though it appears under another designation : '^ Remarks 
upon Mr. Evanson's Preface to his Translation of Knittel's 
New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7. By Clemens Anglicanus. 
Cambridge, 1829." 

The author of this acute and well-written tract does not 
enter into the general discussion with Knittel. This he 
deemed unnecessary, as every argument adduced by the 
learned Grerman deserving of attention had been disposed of 
before. His attention is exclusively directed to the preface, 
the misstatements and inaccuracies of which he has detected 
and exhibited in a manner that, I should suppose, will make 
the translator regret he ever attempted anything original on 
a subject he so imperfectly understands. Clemens Anglica- 
nus, at the same time, writes in the most gentlemanly man- 
ner. With the most perfect command of his temper and his 
pen, he analyses Mr. Evanson's reasonings, and entirely de- 
molishes them. Without quoting a large part of the pam- 
phlet, I could not place the argument of it before the reader, 
• Oxlee's Two Letters to the Bishop of Salisbury, pp. 18-18. 



dbyGoOgk 



CLEMENS ANGLICANUS. 179 

80 as to enable him to appreciate its merits. I must, there- 
fore, content myself with extracting the concluding para- 
graphs, in which he gives his opinion of KnitteFs work, and 
of part of his translator's preface. Those who wish to exam- 
ine the subject more fully, will refer to the pamphlet itself; 
or to a very able critique on KJoittel and Clemens Anglicanus 
in the Eclectic Review for the present month (February, 1830). 
"Mr. Evanson has done good service by his translation of 
the * New Criticisms.' M. Knittel, the author of the work, 
is manifestly a very learned man ; but his ingenuity — per- 
haps I might say, his imagination — fairly overpowers his 
judgment He finds scarcely anything but resemblances 
between objects which present to the common eye little 
besides dissimilitude. The consequence is, that his book 
contains as weak arguments, perhaps, as ever were advanced 
in favor of the disputed text ; but they are frequently man- 
aged with uncommon dexterity. He affects, in his discussion, 
the smartness of dialogue, and is somewhat rhapsodical in 
his style of writing. The best part of his book relates to 
Cyprian. As for his argument depending upon the Iv tA 
rpia and ri rpia €v, — which, from Griesbach's notice, we 
were previously aware that Knittel had employed, — it only 
shows that the Greek fathers who used such expressions 
were accustomed to express, in the briefest manner, the re- 
ceived doctrine of a Trinity in Unity Let me add, that 

I think it much to be lamented that the translator should 
have retained the algebraical proof or illustration of the 

doctrine just mentioned, — which forms appendix (G) 

That the * New Criticisms ' present no very distinct view of 
the subject discussed, may, I think, be collected from Mr. 
Evanson's preface. Had Mr. Evanson translated any one 
of the dissertations of Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, Or Gries- 
bach, his preface could scarcely have contained so many in- 
accuracies. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



180 CONTBOVERSY RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

^ Mr. Eyanson devotes several pages of his preface to ob- 
servations on the mode of criticism adopted by ^ the Deistical 
Wetstein, the Pelagian, Utilitarian Semler, and their servile 
imitators'; from the tenor of which observations I naturally 
conclude that he does not aspire after the character of a dis- 
creet and temperate writer. 

^ Mr. Evanson apprehends that < the transition, from our 
conclusion to that of the Unitarians is natural and easy.' — 
'Tom,' says the learned writer, * reject one verse of John's 
First Epistle : they reject the first fourteen verses of his Gos- 
pel.' — * It is,' he adds, * but a step, and we reject the Sacred 
Canon altogether.' Now the only method, as it appears to 
me, by which all this can be effected, must be by disregard- 
ing our present Greek manuscripts, as *'few and stispictous 
witnesses'; and referring to 'the many thousand uncollated 
Greek manuscripts which are probably in existence.' If the 
Unitarians should manifest any disposition to take this course, 
which has been chosen by Mr. Evanson himself, I trust that 
he will be able to produce good reasons why they ought not 
to follow his example." ♦ 

I should have stated, in the regular course of the memoirs, 
the views taken of the controverted passage by Mr. Home, 
in his valuable Introduction to the Scriptures, — a woA no 
lesa distinguished for the laborious diligence which it displays, 
than for the amiable candor which pervades it Of this the 
present controversy affords an illustration. In his earlier 
editions, the mind of the author either hung in doubt, or it 
leaned to the side of the authenticity of the passage. In his 
sixth edition, however, he fairly surrenders it, as no longer 
defensible. Afler giving, which he had done in all his edi- 
tions, an admirable statement of the evidence on both sides, 
he concludes thus : — 

* Clemens Anglioanos'i) Remarks, pp. 44-46. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



HOBNE. 181 

"Upon a review of all tHe preceding arguments, the di^ 
pnted clause (jw^e think) must be abandoned as spurious : nor 
can anything less than the positive authority of unsuspected 
manuscripts justify the admission of so important a passage 
into the sacred canon. Much stress, it is true, has been laid 
npon some points in the internal evidence, and particularly 
the supposed grammatical arguments (Nos. 2 and 3), and the 
reasons assigned for the omission of this clause. But some 
of these reasons have been shown to be destitute of the sup- 
• port allegecl in their behalf; and the remainder are wholly 
hypothetical, and unsustained by any satisfactory evidence. 
* Internal evidence,' indeed, (as Bishop Marsh forcibly ar- 
gues,) ^ may show that a passage is spuriouSy though external 
evidence is in its favor ; for instance, if it contain allusions to 
things which did tiot exist in the time of the reputed author. 

Btrr NO INTERNAL EVIDENCE CAN PROVE A PASSAGE TO 
BE GENUINE, WHEN EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IS DECIDEDLY 

AGAINST IT. A spurious passage may be fitted to the con- 
text as well as a genuine passage. No arguments, therefore, 
from internal evidence, however ingenious they may appear, 
cau outweigh the mass of external evidence which applies to 
the case in question.' " ♦ 

I must not omit to mention, that Mr. Home was the first, 
Bo far as I have observed, to bring before the British public 
the testimony of the Oodex Ottohonianus^ as containing the 
disputed clause. It adds, however, nothing to the authority 
of the passage. The following is. his account of this manu- 
script, derived from Professor Scholz's communication in the 
" Biblisch-Kritische Reise." 

^ The Codex Ottohonianus 298, in the Vatican Library, is 
the only other manuscript in which the disputed clause is to 
be found. According to Dr. Scholz it is as follows : on rpui 

» Home's Introduction. Vol. IV. p. 486. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



ISE CONTBOVEBST BISPBOTING 1 JOHN V. 7. 

H9t9 Of ftafTvpmims tato rov ovpopovy wamjpj Xoyoc^ Km vptvfta 
dyioy* KtH 0i tp$t£ #cf re fr turu Ktu rpiis ci<nr»oi ftofirvpomn^ 
^ttro Tift fffty to itpfjffta, A^j io. It is. worthy of remai^ that 
this manuscript has a«ro rw mfpapdiv, froM ke<weh, instead of cf 
tf ovpawf, in hi&vtn, and otto tiff ytit^fram earthy* instead (^ c' 
rn 79, on earihy whidi Words occur in the Ck)dex Montfortia^ 
nus ; ittid the absence of the article (as in that manuscript) 
before the words expi'^ssive of Fadior, Son, and Hoiy Ghost, 
manifestly indiolkteii the Lattn oi%in of the Ckxkx Ottokmi- 
onw ; which has fbrther been alterech in many pHtees to make 
it agree with the Latin Vulgate. And » this manuscript is 
stated to have been writtet in th^ fifteenth centuiy, this late 
date, in additioii to thd r^tf doubtful internal evidence wlu<^ 
it affiHtls, renders it* testimoiiy of no force whateyeri" f 

* [Home has been led into error by Scholz. The manuscript reads Ivt 
rnt y^, OH Mfiikt instead of a*^ t^ yq«, as appears by the &c-simile giten 
In the later editions of Bc3ttte*s lntrodttotion.'->^£d.] 

t Home's Introdoctioii, Vol IT* p^ 4M. 



dbyGoOgk 



APPENDIX 

BY THE EDITOR. 

Thb princ^Hd ofcgect of the fc^owifig Appendix is to continue 
like liistoiy of the oontroTersj respeeting 1 John ▼. 7, firom the 
^rear 1830, the date of Mr. Onne's Memoir, to the present time. No- 
tice will also be taken of some earlier publications cm the subject. 

The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review for February, 
1811, contained an article on Griesbach's Greek Testament, now 
JOiown to hare been written by the Rey. Joseph S. Buckminster, 
in which the question was asked, '* To what is it to be attributed 
that even at the pre^nt day 1 John y. 7 is quoted in proof of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and even taken as a text <^ discomrses, 
when it ought to be known that it has not more authority in its 
favor than the famous reading of the seyentib commandment, in 
one of the. editions of King James's Bible : Thou shaU cormmit 
aduUeryf (p. 110.) This strong statement, followed by a re- 
mark placing Acts zx. 28 and 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the same category, 
gave occasion to a critical discussion of the various readings of 
these passages in Ihe Panoplist ior April and May, 1811, the latter 
of the two articles being mainly devoted to 1 John .y. 7. The 
writer in tiie Pauwplist, while admitting " great doubts ** respect- 
ing this passage, urges the quotation of tiie text in the Confessicm 
of Faith presented by the Catholic bishops to Huneric, A. D. 484, 
•and the use of the article before IW in the last clause of the eighth 
yerse, as important ailments for its genuineness ; and observes : 
"Until these [circumstances] are fairly considered and fairly 
explained, we cannot deem the spuriousneis of the passage to be 
settled beyond dispute." (p. 639.) The argument on the former 
point is quoted fixnn Charles Butler^s Letters to Professor Marsh, 



dbyGoogk 



184 APPENDIX. 

and on tbe latter from Middleton's woik on the Greek A/ticIe. 
In the Anthology for June, 1811, Mr. Buckminster replied, re- 
marking that there was ^^ not a single argument in Mr. Butler's 
letter, which had not been already brought forward by Travis, and 
considered by Porson Mid Griesbach"; and propounding four 
questions, which he says the advocates of the verse must answer, 
before this African Confession can be offered as good authority 
for thjB existence of the verse in Latin cofACS at the end of the 
fifth century. The argument that the use of the article before 
ty implies the existence of a previous cv, to be found only in ver. 
7, he meets by referring to the use of t6 tv m Phil. ii. 2. The 
Panoplist for August, 1811, contains a rejoinder; but there is no 
reply to the four questions, nor any notice of the passage adduced 
in illustration of the use of the article before €v. 

In the year 1820 the Rev. Henry Ware, Jr., published " Two 
Letters to the Rev. Alexander McLeod, D. D., Pastor of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church, containing Remeurks upon the Teits 
from which he preached on the Evenings of April 30, and May 
V New York, 1820, 8vo. pp. 24. The text of Dr. McLeod's 
first discourse was 1 John v. 7, which was assumed to be genuine. 
Mr. Ware protests against this assumption, and quotes in oppo- 
sition the concessions of a number of eminent Trinitarian writers, 
who had expressed in the strongest terms their conviction of its 
spuriousness. Among these quotations, the following extract from 
a Latin letter of Bishop Lowth to Michaelis, first published in 
Michaelis's Literarischer Briejwechsel, or " Literary Correspond- 
ence," Vol. n. p. 428, may deserve to be repeated here, as the 
work from which it was taken is probably accessible to few Eng- 
lish readers. " We have," says the Bishop, " some wranglers in 
theology, sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend 
anything, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I be- 
lieve there is no one among us in the least degree conversant with 
sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who 
would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 
John V. 7."* In 1823 a third edition of Mr. Ware's tract was 

* " Habemns in theologia rabalas qnosdam in magistri alicnjus verba 
juratos ; nihil est tarn absurdum qaod iUi, si rts et occasio ferat^ non 



dbyGoOgk 



BRITISH CRITIC. ^BICKLL 185 

pabfii^ied in Boston, with additions; and it is reprinted in his 
Works, Vol. ri. pp. 808-830, Boston, 1846, 12mo. 
' The British Critic, Quarterly Theological Review and Ecclesi- 
a3tacal Record for July, 1828, Vol. IV. pp. 1 - 82, in a review of 
the Vindication of Porson by Crito Cantabrigiensis^ contains a full 
and able discussion of the genuineness of the disputed text. 
Speaking of Bishop Burgess, the reviewer says : — "In the various 
pnblicalions enumerated above, he has brought forward, indeed, 
almost every ailment, good, bad, and indifferent, that has ever 
suggested itself to any of the defenders of the verse, and has 
most entirely failed of producing the desired eflRSct. The causes 
of this bad success . are not to be looked for in the want of zeal 
and talents in the advocate, but in the utter hopelessness of the 
cause which he has attempted to maintain." (pp. 2, 8.) The 
British Critic was at this, time the leading organ of the High 
Church party in £ngland. 

In 1828 'Karl Rickli published a commentary, m Grerman, on 
the First Epistle of John, with the following title : — " The First 
Epistle of John, explained and applied in Sermons delivered 
before the Evangelical Reformed Church at Lucerne, with, an 
Historical Preface', Mid an Exegetical Appendix." ♦ He rejects 
J John Y. 7 without hesitation as spurious, and gives in his Appen- 
dix (pp. 29-44) an interesting account of its introduction into 
the various modem translations of the New Testament He 
states that the verse was regarded as supposititious by Luther, 
Zwingli, (Ecolampadius, Bullinger, and Bugenhagen ; that it did 
not appear in Luther's version till 1593, (not 1574 as erroneously 
stated by Panzer and others,) when it was inserted in the edition 
printed at Frankfort, from which the corruption rapidly spread, 
and after 1620 became universal. This interpolation of Luther's 

parati sfnt defendere. Bed neminem credo jam apad nos esse, in critica 
sacra paulom modo versatum, et cui saniim sit sinciput, qui pro sinceri- 
Ute commatis TmilJoh: v. propugnare velit'* — See Christian Disciple 
for March, 1819; New Series, 1. 109. 

• ** Johannis erster Brief, erklart und angewendet in Predigten, . . . mit 
historischem Vorbericht, nnd exegetisohem Anhange." .... Luzern^ 
1828,' 8vo. pp. xxxiv., 899, 48. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



IS6 APPENPHL 

▼ersioQ wm in direct eppodtion to bis Boleom charge, in the 
Preface to the edition published in the year of his death (1546), 
that no alteration should be made in his work. The first edition 
of his traiudation of the New Testament was published in 1522, 

In- 1S31 another voliune appeared &om the pen of the indefati- 
gable Bishop Burgess, entitled *^ Remarks on the Gren^al Tenour 
of the New Testament regar^ng the Nature and Dignity of Jesus 
Christ, addressed to Mn, Joanna BailUe," in^which, of course, the 
genainenesB of 1 John v. 7 was defended ; and in 1835 he pub- 
lished at Salisbury the fi>llowing worif : " An Introduction to 
the Controversy on the Diqouted Verse of St. John, as revived 
by Mr. Gibbon: to which is added Christian Theocracy: a 
Second Letter to Mrs, Joamui Baillie.'' The Introduction was 
first privately printed in 1833, It tlm)ws no new light on the 
subject. , 

In 1835 Cardinal Wiseman published at Borne "Two Lettei? 
on .some Fartfi of the Controversy concerning the Grenuineness of 
1 John V. 7 : containing ako an Inquiry into the Origin of the first 
I^tin Version of Scripture, commonly called * the Itala.' '* These 
Letters fifst appeared in the Catholic Magazine for 1832 and 
1833, Vols. n. and IH, The Soman edition -contains some ad- 
ditions. They are reprinted, with a few verbal changes, in Vol. 
I. of Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, London, 1858 ; and 
this is liie edition firom which I shall quote. 

In these Letters the Cardinal maintains that the first I>atin 
version of the Greek Testament originated in the Roman prov- 
ince of North Africa ; that the so-called interpretatio Jtcda, which 
Augustine preferred for its closeness and perspicuity, was a revis- 
ion or recension of this primary Latin version, and consequently 
inferior in critical authority. He iurther maintains that, though 
the disputed passage was wanting in the manuscripts used in Italy, 
and does not appear in the writings of the Italian fathers, it 
belonged to the original Latin version, made in Africa ; whence 
" we are led to conclude that the manuscripts used in making this 
version possessed the verse; and these were necessarily manu- 
scripts of far greater antiquity than any we pan now inspect." ♦ 

* Wiseman's Essays, I. 66. 



dbyGoOgk 



1%«I ik^ P9m9^ m quQ^^oft boloDged arighui&^r to Ae CMii 
Latin t^iwob, !Q^, Wistmaa iafeis ton ito being quoted or re* 
lerred to by ^e AM<$fm fsitbers, Teftiidlian, Cypnan, Marcns 
Celedeosis, Yifitor VitonaiA, t^e foiv hundred bishope assemUed 
vmdm HoKexio ^ <}Artb4ge, Yigiliua T^^peenais, and Fulgentius. 
A naw Qiguiiient in I^Yor of this theaia is bused on an anonymous 
vork called the Spectdum, or ^^Ifixror,^ found in a manuscript 
assigned by Wiseman to tha sixth or seventh century, belonging 
to the Hbrary of Santa Croce in Qarosaleimne in lUone. This 
work etmrna^ wholly of quotations fiacwi Sonpture, arranged 
under (me hundred and forty-four heads, embracing the chief 
points of Christian belief and i»»qtice. The text is that of the 
Old Ladn yersipn, and generaBy agrees with the quptations of 
tiie iJrioan iath^n. It has be^i published by Cardinal Mai in 
his NoTa BibliothecA Patrum, Tom. L Pars 11., Rome, 1852, 4to. 
If Q title is pren to the mftnuscript by the (ffiginal tianscriber, but 
8eY«ral diierent a«d later hm^ds have prefiji^ed inscriptions eiroH 
neously identifying it with a trea^e of Augustine's against tiie 
Xkmatists, which PossidiuAr in his £st of that Cither's woiks, 
entitles De T^immi^ Scnpiuranm cmtra DomOiUm et Idda. 
One of the four titles, howev^, thus prefixed to^ work, reads 
idmply LiM de Speoulo^ We know that Augustine made a col^ 
lection oi practical extra^^ from. Scripture which bore the name 
of Speculum^ serving the reader as a ^^ mirror ** o£ ^aracter ; and 
Wiseman and Mm argue i^iat the present compilation is no otiier 
than tliat w<Mrk. To difcuss tlud qpietticn fidly, and to consider 
the comparative claiais of the two other Specula whidi have been 
attributed by different editors to Augustine, would occupy too 
much space. I would only observe that compilations of tUs kind 
were pcculiady liaW© to^^teratioo^nd int(wwlatipft by transcrib- 
^n^ a<4 thul tbiipe M(^#trQ9ig pres^^q^tions. against the supposi- 

♦ For AD pliwtJ»l|pn pf this f^ot we n^fNl §9 no Apthtr than the work 
which forms a part of the same maDusoript whiQl^ qojiMWi)s t!b» fyi€e^m, 
namely, Cyprian^ f/^atmom «i4m'm .W»p#. Tb# ?tiwdicti«» editors 
complain that the manuscripts of this wtfrk vary so mm^y U^t it \» im- 
p^ihla ^ ^^wh» wfrft Pill of it to C^n?r^«»?f,-reypr|anl Ql^eya, 

Paris, 1726, fol., p. 696. 



dbyGoOgk 



188 APPENDIX. 

tion that Augustine was the author of the present work In its pres- 
ent form. The Speculum of Augustine, as his biographer Possidius 
informs us, was accompanied by a Preface ; this has none : Augus- 
tine in his quotations from the Old Latin version used the Italian 
text ; in this the African recension is fc^owed : Augustine has not 
only never quoted 1 John v. 7 in his voluminous writings, but his 
comments on the verse following show that he cannot have been 
acquainted with it ; in this Speculum it is quoted twice.* 

Dr. Tregelles well remarks, that "even if all Wiseman's pri- 
mary positions were good, they would only show that some Latin 
copies had the passage very early. An addition in some one 
version is of itself no authority for the adoption of the passage as 
genuine." f But the reasoning of Dr. Wiseman vests on assump- 
tions altogether false. The pretended unanimity of the African 
fathers in support of the verse is purely imaginary. The sup- 
posed allusion to 1 John v. 7 in Tertullian, the earliest Latin 
father, really "furnishes," as Bishop Kaye has observed, "most 
decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse ";$ the sup- 
posed quotation from Cyprian proves nothing to the purpose, and 
other portions of his writing^ raise a very strong presumption 
against his acquaintance with the disputed text;§ the passage 
adduced from Marcus Celedensis contains no quotation, and af- 
fords no ground for the su|>position that he knew the text of the 
Three Heavenly Witnesses; a later African father, Facundus, 
was clearly ignorant of it, and derives the doctrine of the Trinity 
from a mystical interpretation of the eighth verse, as Augustine 
Lad done before him. The earliest quotation of the text is to be 

* Once in connection with the eighth verse, which precedes the eeTenth, 
as follows : — " Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritos, 
aqua, et sangais; et hit tres unnn^sunt in Christo Jesu. Et tres sunt qui 
testimonium dicun^ in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et hii tres unum 
sunt." (Gap. 2; see also c. 8.) 

t Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Home's Introduction, 
10th edition, IV. 868, 864. 

t' Kcclesiastical History, etc., illustrated firom the Writings of Tertullian, 
8d edition, p. 615. 

, ^ Qn this point see Crito CarUabriffienii$j Vindication of Porson, pp. 
881-886. 



dbyGoOgk 



WISEMAH. 189 

* 
found in tbe wridngB of VigiKus Ts^ensis, in the latter part of tlie 
fifth century ; and from that time it appears with such a variety oi 
readings as to suggest at once its character as an interpolation, 
derived from a marginal gloss. Its occurrence in the Speculum 
proves only that it existed in some Latin manuscripts as early as 
the seventh century. 

Dr. Wiseman frrrther gives an account of a manuscript of the 
Latin Vulgate preserved in Uie Benedictine monastery of La CavA, 
which contMns the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, biit 
with some peculiar readings. Cardinal Mai regards it as belong- 
ing to the seventh century at latest ; Tlschendorf assigns it to the 
eighth. 

The Cardinal finally entertains us wilh some reports of Greek 
manuscripts containing the passage. He states that in the An- 
gelica Library at Rome is preserved the .copy of the Bible used 
by Aagelo Bocca, the secretary of the Congr^ation appointed by 
Clement VIL for the correction of the Vulgate. Upon the text 
of St. John in this volume is* the following marginal note:^ 
** Hffic verba sunt certissime de textu et allegantur contra h»re- 
ticos ab Athanasio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Cyi^llo et Cypriano ; et 
Hieronymus in prologo dicit ab infidclibus scriptoribus friisse 
praetermissa. In GraBCo etiam quodam aatiquissimo exemplari 
quod habetur Venetiis leguntur; unde cdligkur Gneca, quae 
passim feruntur, in hac parte esse mendosa, et omnia Latina 
manuscripta in quibus non liabentur ilia verba signata." * That 
18, " These words certainly belong to the text, and are alleged 
agjunst the heretics by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, and 
Cyprian; and Jerome in his Prologue says they w^re omitte^by 
unfaithful transcribers. They are also read in a very ancient 
Greek Copy preserved at Venice ; whence it is inferred that the 
ordinary Greek copies are faulty in this }dace, and likewise all 
the Latin manuscripts in which the marked wd^ds are not con- 
tained." 

On this statement it may be sufficient to qiiote the remarks of 
Dr. William Wright, in the Appendix to his translation of Seiler's 
Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 635, "686 : — " But we know that it 

• Wiseman*8 Essays, I. 68. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



190 APPENDIX. 

was not quoted by Athanasiiis, nor by Gregory Nazianzen, hot by 
Cyril ; and that Jerome did not writ^ the Prologue, which was 
forged three or four hundred years after that father was dead. 
The Greek copy at Venice has also long since shrunk from in- 
spectiOn." 

Ih regard to this Greek copy at Venice I would venture the 
conjecture that it is the manuscript belonging to the library of 
St. Mark, described by Bishop Burnet in his Travels in a passage 
already quoted in this volume (pp. 14, 15). This manuscript 
contains the Acts and Epistles in Greek, Latin, and Arabic It 
is numbered 96 in Scholz's list of manuscripts of the Acts and 
Catholic Epistles, and is assigned by him to the eleventh century. 
The text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is found in it, but 
unfortunately only in the Latin portion, which is taken firom the* 
Vulgate.* 

Dr. Wiseman next adduces the oral testimony of a gei^teman, 
Don Leopoldo Sebasdani, who had travelled over a great part of 
Greece expressly with the view of collating manuscripts of tiie 
New Testament for a Latin version of it, which he afl^wards 
published. *^His statement is, that he has seen several manu- 
scripts with the verse erased, and two in which it is written 
prima manu, in the margin. One was at Nicosia in Cyprus, in 
possession of a 'Greek of abilities, a merchant as I understood 
him. It was in uncial letters, large ; on the margin, by the same 
hand, although in smaller characters, was the verse, with an anno- 
tation that it belonged to the text." f 

The hope expressed by Dr. Wiseman that " some traveller may 
b% able to verify this testimony ** has not yet been realized. 

These Letters of Cardinal Wiseman are a valuaUie contribution 
to the history of the Old Latin version ; but scholars generally, 
I think, will acquiesce in the judgment of the North British Re- 
view, that, in respect to 1 John v. 7, " his vindication is merely a 
piece of feeble ingenuity, — designed at the same time to uphold 
the authority of th'e Latin or Romish Church." X I' ^ worthy of 

* See Rinck*s Lucubratio Critica, pp. 80, 41, 109. 

t Wiseman's Essays, I. 68, 69. 

I North British Review, Aag. 1858; XIX. 486. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



MAL — HUYSHE. — WRIGHT. 191 

note that the pradent Cardinal, though presenting certain argu- 
ments in favor (^the disputed text, ^^ as materials for scholars to 
consider," nowhere expresses a positive belief in its genuineness. 
He professes to treat only of " some parts of the controversy." 

It should be here mentioned, perhaps, that Cardinal Angelo 
Mai, in his note on the passage of the SpeeiUitm before referred to, 
contends for the genuineness of 1 John v. 7, — it being sanctioned, 
in Ims view, by " a solemn decree " of the Council of Trent, — and 
says, pathetically, **I am deeply grieved that some celebrated 
editors of the present age have not hesitated to omit this verse, 
and have thus tiirown away an excellent weapon against the 
Socinians and Antichristians." * There is no aigument in the 
note that calls for remark, except perhaps the extraordinary 
blunder of referring to Wetstein's Greek Testament as an author- 
ity in favor of the^genuineness of the passage. Cardinal Mai has 
rendered great service to literature by the publication of manu- 
8cripts which might otherwise have long rem^ed entombed in 
the Vatican ; his industry was indefatigable ; but he has a poor 
reputation among scholars for critical acumen and accuracy. 

In 1833-85 the Rev. Francis Huyshe, who has been already 
introduced to us by Mr. Orme, published a long series of articles 
in the British Magazine, Vols. III. -VII., entitled "A Vindica- 
tion of the Early Parisian Greek Press," which have a bearing on 
the evidence for 1 John v. 7, the writer maintaining that the pas- 
sage miet have been contained in one or more of the manuscripts 
used by Robert Stephens (Estienne) for his editions of the Greek 
Testament printed in 1646, 164^, and 1550. Mr. Huyshe also 
published in the same magazine, Vol. V. pp. 702-707, a noticc^of 
Dr. Wiseman's Letters on 1 John v. 7. His baseless hypotheses 
were demolished by the Rev. John Oxlee in three articles printed 
in the British Magazine, 1836, Vol. VII. pp. 60-63, 208-302, 
and 544-640. 

The Rev. William Wright, LL. D., of Trinity College, Dublin, 

published in 1835 a translation of Seller's Biblical Hermeneutics, 

with additional notes. He treats of the disputed passage in an 

Appendix to the volume, pp. 613-652, which is valuable for its 

* Mai's Nova Bibl. Patrum, Tom. I. Pars II. p. 7. 

Digitized by Google 



192 JLPPEMDOL 

full accotiBt of ihe readiugg of tke Lalm siaaiiscripti, and £te 
reftitalioii of 86me of Wiseman'f argUHients. In regard to tlie 
Spectdum he obeerrei : — 

*^ Dr. Wiseman is fiirtlier ei opinicm^ tiiat^ undw any eircnna- 
ittances, whoever mi^t have been the author a£ this anonTmons 
work, the use of the old version wiU not allow os to assign it to^ 
hittch later age than the middle of the fourth century. 

^ But Pope Leo the Great made use of the <dd version in tlie 
fi^ century, and even of an impure copy ; and Gregory the Great, 
in the sixth century, says that he used at one tame the old, at an- 
other the new version, just as the one or the other happened to be 
better adapted to demonstration, since the apostolical chair, which 
he filled, recognized both. — Letter to Leander^ Bishop of Sevitte.'* * 

In the Literary and Theological Review (New York) for March, 
1835, Yd. n. pp. 141 - 148, there is an article on the ^^ Authen- 
ticity of 1 John V. 7, 8," by the RfiYv William W. Hunt, <d Am- 
herst, Mass., hi which the genuineness <^ the passage is mtuntained. 
The essay ii not afeditable to the learning or ability ^ the 
author. His acquaintance irith the subject may be judged of by 
the . assertions that the words «V rj yg in the e^th verse are 
"geners^y allowed to be genuine,** and "found in some early 
Gi^ek mtouscripts " ; and th'at " there is not a Kttle evidence that 
the passage is quoted or referred to by distinguished Grreek writ- 
ers of th€ third or fourth century, and it is found in all the printed 
editions of the Greek TestamerU!** (pp. 143, 145, 146.) The 
following is mentioned among the considerations which should 
incline ui to receive the disputed text: — "The Bible is the 
revelation of God, and the only one which he has ^ven to men. 
... It is immensely important that this book, as a whole, have sdl 
the weight of Divine authonty. Now what is the influence upon 
the community of rejecting a part of it, — of calling a vferse, here 
and there, spurious ? Other verses are soon suspected, especially 
if they reveal an unpleasant doctrine, oi* inculcate an unpleasant 
duty. The public cohfidencfe is shaken, and infidelity .is en- 
couraged.", (p. 147,) 

in 1886 Dr. J. M, ^ Scholz, Professor of Theology in the 

f Seil^r'l Pibnpal IJiernjeneptica, p. 684. 



dbyCoOgk 



SCHOLZ.-** FABLER. 198 

tJfiitefsitf of B&Mkj {ubfiihed at Leipeic ihd second Tolulnd of 
his edition of the Gre^ Teetament, for which he had examined, 
mord ot less, several hundreds of manuscripts which had never, 
befoi^ been used for critacal pnrposes. Though a Cathotic, and 
IhoHgh, as AreUbishop Kenrick remarks in tiie note on 1 John v. 7 
iB'^ translation of the New Testament, tiie genuineness of 
Ihk y^^se is general^ maintained hj Catholics, ^^ being read in 
^le Tulgate, which, in all its parts, was sanctioned b^ the Council 
nf Tt^^"^ Seholz rejects the disputed passage as ^u#ions, as he 
had b^ore done m his German translation of the New Testament, 
publffihed in IB9%^ Hib gave occasion to *^ Three Letters to the 
Jfteiv* Dr> Sch^ ^ w . on the Contents of his Note on 1 John v. 7. 
By thd Bishop of Salisbury." Southampton, 1887, Svo. In 
^ese .Letters, which were privately printed. Bishop Bui^ess, as we 
Iffe tfAA by hk biography ** pointed out some remarkable contra- 
dictions between certain passages in the Prolegomena to that 
"weik [Sofadbls edi^on of tiie Grreek Testament] and tiie state- 
tiient0 of htt note oA 1 John v* 7, respecting H^ age and date of 
Ah^ Gfeek MSS. ccmtamiog the disputed verse." We are further 
infermed that Dr. i^hok " acknowledged, in very respect^l terms, 
the recdpt of the letterl; he observed that the MS. [MS8.] in 
question [the Codex Ottobonianus 298, and a Neapolitan mann- 
flcript which has tiie verse in the margin in a handwriting of thfi 
* AXteentii or seventeenth century] added something to the evi- 
dence in favor of the authentieity of the verse, but maintained that 
they were of very little weight when compared in authority and 
antiquity with the multitude omitting it."* 

Li 1845 the Rev* Fr^erick A. Farley published a tract enti- 
tied " Grounds for rejecting the Text of the Three Heavenly 
Witnesses ; L John, v. 7. With Concessions oi Trinitarians upon 
the Same." Boston, April, 1846, 12mo. pp. 24. This was printed 
ftjr the Ainorican Unitarian Association 2ffl.No. 213 of the First 
Series of its '* Tracts." The author acknowledges his great 
indebtedness for his materials to Mr. John Wilson's " Concessions 
of Trinitariims," Manchester, Eng., 1842, 8vo; a remarkable 
work) to which I would also refer the curious reader for some 

* Harford's Life of Bishop Burgess, p. 477. 
9 M 



dbyGoogk 



194 * APPENDIX. 

Trinitarian atitborities for rejecting the disputed passage, w^usk 
it does not seem wordi while to mention here. 

In 1858 Dr. Joseph TumbuU published in Lond<Hi " The 
Seven Epistles of Jsunes, Peter, John, and * Jude, and the 
Reyelation. Translated from the Original Greek, with Critical 
Notes, and a Dissertation on 1 John v. 7, 8." Hiis dissertation^ 
which miuntauns the genuineness of the passage, was reviQwed by 
Dr. S. P. Tregeilesin the Journal of Sacred literature and 
Biblical Record for April, 1858, pp. 167-178. He remarks: — 
"Dr. Tumbull's dissertation has one merit, — brevity, — for it is 
rather less than ten pages ; but in these ten pages there is hardly 
a statement^that is wcMrthy o£ implicit confidence. This may 
sound like a harsh judgment, but I will give proo&." (p. 168:) 
The proofs given are ample. There is nothing new in '.Dr. 
Tumbull's dissertation but mistakes, cme of the most r^narka^le 
of which is an argument for the genuineness of the passage 
founded on its supposed existence in a Wcjfenbiittel manuscript 
assigned by Gri^bach to the eleventh or twelfth century. Dr. 
Tumbull has confounded the Codex Guelpherhytanus XVL 7, 
(No. 69 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles,) to which GriesblM^ 
assigns the date above mentioned, and which omita the disputed 
text, (though it has been added in the margin by a very receit 
Jiand,) with the Codex Guelpherbytanus D, described by Knittd, 
which contains it, but also contains in the same handwriting the* 
Latin versions of Yatable, Castalio, and Beza, showing that it 
was not written before the latter part of the sixteenth century,* 
This blunder is accompanied with censure of Griesbach for sup- 
posed inconsistency in his account of the manuscript ; on which 
Tregelles quaintly remarks: — 

** Griesbach was certainly right in each thing that he said ; but 
if an extract from a catalogue at the beginning c^ a Volume may 
be made the nominative case to a verb at the end of the book, 
then will no author be safe." 

In respect to another point Tregelles oWrves : — "Dr. Tum- 
bull next seeks, by mere assertion and by a reference to an in- 

• See Griesbach's Diatribe on 1 John v. 7, p. 7; Knitters JVeue KfitikeHt 
or " New Criticia/na," pp. 124, 127. 



dbyGoOgk 



TUBNBULL. — BOSTON REVIEW. 1&5 

correct statement of Dr. Adam Clarke, to claim a high place for 
the Codex Montfortianus at Dublin; I have recently discussed 
this manuscript (see Homers Introd. IV. 218 - 217) 'and therefore 
I shall now only repeat that it contains the Latin chapters ; that in 
other parts of the chapter 1 John v. it shows that its accordance 
with Latin copies is peculiar ; that the Grospels could not be older 
than the latter part of the fifteenth century ; the Epistles and 
Acts were* afterwards added (sometime between the year- 1500 
and the middle of the reign of Elizabeth) ; and that last of all 
the Apocalypse was appended in the reign of that queen.'' * 

The Boston Review for May, 1864, VoL IV. pp, 258-273, 
.contsdns an article <mi "The Greeks Text in Acts, xx. 28; 1 
Timothy, iii. 16 ; and 1 John, v. 7, 8," defending the reading of 
the Received Text in each of th^e passages. The writer is so inac- 
curate as ta represent, at the ^ery beginning of his essay, the words 
" m earth," in 1 Jc^ v. 8, as undisputed ; though they are omitted 
in all the known Greek manuscripts written before the invention 
of printing, and are rejected as spurious by all the scholars who 
reject the rest of the passage in question. His account of the 
vsurious readings of Acts xx. 28, and of the evidence for them, is 
also grossly inaccurate. Indeed, the article is full of misstate- 
ments, and appears to have been written by some one wholly 
ignorant of the literature of the last thirty years. The arguments 
adduced in &vor of the genuineness of 1 John v. 7 are founded 
on the incorrect assertions and utterly exploded .hypotheses of 
such writers as Nolan and Hales. The absence of the passage 
from all existing Greek manuscripts of any authority and from 
the ancient versions is explained by a reference to the order given 
to Eusebius by the Emperor Constantino, to have Mty copies of 
the Scriptures carefully transcribed for the use of the new 
churches in Constantinople.f Eusebius is supposed, on account 
rf his " Arian proclivities," and " fbr a sinister purpose," to have 
omitted 1 John v. 7 from these copies. To complete the solution 
of the problem, we have only further to suppose that, though this 
remarkalble text was before contsuned in ail thd Greek copies of 

• Journal of Sacred Literature, April, 1858, pp. 171, 172, 
t See Eusebius's Life of Coriltantine, IV. 86. 



dbyGoOgk 



\H APPENDIX. 

the Epietle po«seMed 'hy Cliti«tlaiis id A^ Minora Syria, Pal«h 
tine, Egypt, Greece, Itdy, GaqI, and oth^ parts of the world, to 
say nothing of the early Teroons, it was eliminated from all tibe 
manuscripts in t^e hands of the orldiodox as w^ as (^ the 
Arians, witJiout dmotery^ in an age of heated controyersy on tiie 
subject c^ the Trinity. The oomipted cc^es were palmed (^ 
upon Athanae^ and his fbllowers, and the ancient versions made 
in the second and third eentimes in Syria aaiid Egypt were 
mutilated to cortrespond to them, so that no trace of the passage 
has been found in any tinannsimpt copy of those veraions, or in anjr 
Greek manuscript written before the inventiott «f px^tkig, or in 
the writings of any Greek, father before the middle of the fbor; 
teenth century. Nobody ever missed it; and the fraud <^ Euse- 
« bins was first detected, some fifteen hnndred years aflar its 
perpetration, by the sagacity of tiie Ret. Frederick Nolan I 

After this satisfactory removal of tiie difficulty^ about the Gre^ 
manuscripts and the tmcient versions, the reviewer complaeently 
remarks, ** If such is the Mght that Bishop BloomfieM is waiting fcnr, 
we hope that his next edition may have it"; confimnding, with 
the carelessness which characterizes the whole article, the Rev. 
S. T. Bloomfield, the editOT of the Greek Testament, with Corn- 
field, the Bishop of London, and ignorant that Blodmfield, to 
whom h^ refers as "decidedly in favor of the passage," had 
twenty-five years ago abandoned the defence of it as hopeless. 
Bishop Blomfield had ateo long before expressed his belief of its 
spuriousness.* 

In justice to the editors^ of the Boston Beview, thoigh they sa^ 
that ** evidently the time has not come to close the case," it should 
be stated that they supplement the article by giving quotati<Mis 
fi^m Alford and Tr^elles, which present the f^ts as they are. 

The existence of. such defences of the disputed passage as we 
have had occasion to notice must not mislead us as to the real 
state of the case. In the judgment of all scholars whose opinion 
is worthy of respect, the question, I believe, has long been re- 
garded as settled. This statement, however, it may be well to 
* See W. D. Conybeare's Theological Lectures, 2d edit, p. 209. 



dbyGoOgk 



CRITICAL EDITORS. 197 

cbufirm by definite refereiiGes, and by quotations Scorn the irrit- 
ings of the most eminent critics. 

The text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses has been rejected 
as spurious in all the editions of the Greek Testament published 
within the present century which have any critical reputation 
among scholars; for example, in those of Kns^p (1797, 5th edit. 
1840),'Matthfei (1804), Griesbach (smaller edit. 1805, larger 1806), 
Scfaott (1805, 4th edit 1889), Tittmann (stereotype edit 1820), 
Yater (1824), Lachmann (1831, larger edit 1850), Bloomfield (in 
his 3d edit 1839, and later editions),* Hahn (18^0, new edit 
1861), l^hendorf (1841, 7th edit 1859), Theile (1844, 8th 
stereotype edit 1865), Wordsworth (1860),t Alford (1861, 2d 
edit 1862), T. S. Green, Twofold New Testiament (1865), and 
in the editions' by the Catholics Gratz (1821, new edit 1828) 
and Scholz (1836), whom I have already had occasion to men- 
tion. 

* Bloomfield says in his Recensio Synoptica, Vol. VIII. p. 776 (London, 
1828), " To me it appears probable that the verses are genuine '' ; in his 
Jirtt edition of the Greek Testament (1881), he regarded ** the authenticity 
of the verses as, though doubtfhl, yet verging to probability " ; in his 
Bteond edition (1886), reprinted and stereotyped in this country in 1887, he 
thmks " we are neither authorized to receive the passage as indubitably 
genuine, nor, on the other hand, to reject it as indubitably spurious, but to 
wait for further evidence **; in his third edition (1839) he marks the words 
as spurious, and r^ects them decidedly in his notes; in the nirUh edition 
(1855) he expresses his conclusion as follows: ** In short, the words cannot, 
with any due regard to those canons of criticism acted upon in aU other cases 
throughoj^t the writings of the New Testament, be regarded otherwise than 
as spurious. | find not a vestige of them in any one of the numerous 
Lamb, and Mus. manuscripts which I have collated.** 

The Rev. Edward Burton, D. D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the 
University at Oxford, in his edition of the Greek Testament (1881, 8d 
edit 1848), brackets the passage, and remarks in a note, **' There is great 
reason to think that all the words fh>m ^ rep dvpou^ [in heaven] to cv if yg 
^n earth] are an interpolation.** In his Bampton Lectures, p. 528, he re- 
jects them, though with confessed reluctance, as spurious. 

t Though Wordsworth rejects the disputed text as a gloss, hcfinds the 
doctrine of the Trinity, as Augustine and others had done before him, in 
the eighth verse, understanding by '* the water** the Father, and by ** the 
blood** the Son 1 



dbyGoOgk 



198 APPENDIX. 

There is seavijike npi^ agDeemsat MaoagfO ^tmq^iMff^ 
and commentatora o£ the present eeatur/, who h^vQ ai;ij r^^^ta^ 
lion fi)r leammg aad judgment. Aocordingly the disputed pas- 
sage IS treated as furious by Sto]» (4th edit* l^Hlh Mfg^sd 
(1805), Seikr (1800), BoaoimiiUer (5th edit 180$), oi^ ^omi^ 
tiymaa Charles I^Muson in his transktiosi of th^ Pible (1808)\ 
Hewlett (181S, also 1810), Adam Clad^^ (1^17), Jaspia (2d 
edit. 1821), Boothroyd (18^ new adit 1848), Lueke (1825, 
«d edit. 18B0), Riddi (1828), H. A. W» Jfcyer (jl«29), Paulus 
(1829), Gva^iof (1830), GranidUe Fmn (183$, '37), Pe Wette 
(1887, 5th edit, l^ Brtickner, IS^S), Jaebnaima (ia38)j Baum* 
gmiien-Crusius (1845), Barnes (1847), Ih% ^wsgpd Ash (1849)» 
Neander (1851, £i^. trans. 1852), Uv^HxeK (|95^ U edit 
1861), Diisterdieok (1856), Bunsea, Bibehierk^ JiUh I Theil 1- 
pp. clxxxvii. -exciii. (1858), Elward (^9), Ewald (I8fil), Holt»- 
mann, in Bmisen's Btbelwerk (1864), and the AmericuL Bibto 
Union in its revised translation of the New Testament (1864). 

The only recent c<Mnmeptators whom I have seen referred to 
as maintaining the genuineiv^ (^ the passage in Rebate are J. E. 
F. Sander (1851), W. F. Besser (1851), and G. K. Mayer (1851), 
— all Crerman writers. Sandw speaks of the passage doubtlvUy, 
and enters into no full discussion of the question, merdy opposing 
Griesbach's view of the testimony of Cyprian and one or two 
otha* Latin &,thera, Besser and Mayer I have not examined ; 
the latter is a Catholic. Sailder a^d Beas^ are Lutheran Qleiigy- 
men, who have published a good many smaJl popular and contro- 
rersial works; Imt I am not aware that eitiier of them ^las aciy 
reputation for critical sdu^arship. 

Of the commentators nvhom J have named on the writings of 
John, the most universally ^isteemed, perhaps, is Liiicke, Professor 
e£ Theology in the IJniiTeKs^y of Bonn, aud |k^;erwar43 in that of 
Gottingen. Li reference to 1 John v. 7, ho ob|evves:r^**No 
result of modem criticism is more certain than thai this passage 
is spurious."* 

Most of the popular commentaries curreUt in this country and 

^ CoHHs. Ub«r die Briefii des Er. Johsnnss, V Aufl., PP. Wi Wt 
or p. 267, Eng. translation. 



dbyGoOgk 



STUART. — SMITH LEE. — HOBNE. IM 

Biiglaiid dther bdong to the h^ cenlaryy or tre tba produotion 
of writ^TB, like Thooiafl 800II;, who hsFe no preteanon to critioal 
leamingA 

The priojcipal writers in defbnee of the doetrine of the Trinity 
in the preset^ centqry, as WaidlAw, Stuart, and Dr. John Pye 
Smith, likewise agree in its rcjeclaon, ^Thns Professor StnaSrt mjs, 
** The text in 1 John ▼. 7 is be/oiid all questicm indefenstUe." * 
Dr. John Pye Smith, whose ^ Scripture Testimonj to the Messiah'' 
is perhaps tiie most learned and Mbora^ ihu^se in the £nglish 
langaage enthe deity of Christ, observes: **That some learned 
writers have of late professed themselyes satisfied of the ^then- 
ticity of this passage, while tiiey advanoe nodiing bat sonnises 
and conjectures, and mistakes almost incredible in the statmnenft 
of £u3t8, to counterbalance the weight of eridence on the other 
side, excites my astoniriiment and concern. • . • . The attempt to 
set aside the decisicm of impartial mkL honest critieisBi is painfidly 

discreditable.'' t 

Instead of giving, as it would be easy to do, a long list of the 
names of eminent Trinitarian scholars and dipnes of the {wesent 
century, who^have expressed inddentally their oonvietion of the 
^uriousness of this buncos proof-text, I shall confine myself, m 
what follows, to tiiose who have specially devoted themselves to 
the textual criticism of tiie New Testament in general, or who 
have elaborately discussed iMa subject in particolar, since the 
pnUication of Mr. Orme's Mem^. 

Dr. Samuel Lee, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the Umveraty 
of Cambridge, in his Prolegomena to Bagster's Pdyglott Bible, ' 
also prefixed to his Novum Testamentum Syriacum, London, 
[1831,] 4to, discusses i^ genuineness of our "greatly vexed pas- 
sage," and repudiates it as furious. (Prol. vi. § 3, iq>. 71 > 74.) 

The Rev. Thomas Hartwell Home, in his Introduction to the 
Holy Scriptures, has given a very full account of &e evidence and 

* Letters to dinning, new edition, in liis *' Miscellanies/* Andover, 
18^6, p. 187. 

t Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, third edition, Lond. 1887, Vol. 
m. t>p. 117, 118; fifth edition (1869), Vol. U, pp. 168, 164. See also 
Wardlaw*8 Diseonrses on the Socinlan Controversy, pp. 16, 16, Amer. edit. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



200 APPENDIX. 

arguments on both sides of the question respecting the c(»itro-> 
verted text In the fourth edition of that work. (London, 1824), 
reprinted at Philadelphia in 1825 in four volumes, octavo, he 
favored the genuineness of the passage, being misled hj the inae- 
curate statements of Nolan, Hales, and Bishop Burgess. But tiie 
errors of these writers having been fully exposed by Oxlee, Tur- 
ton, and others, he had the candor and honesty, in later editions, 
among them the eighth (1889), reprinted at Philadelphia in 1840, 
to abandon the passage ^ spurious. In the tenth edition of this 
work (1856), Vol. IV. pp. 355-884, Dr. Tregelles has made some 
valuable additions to Home's account of the controversy. • The 
literature of the subject is given in a bil^(^raphical Appendix, 
pp. 884-388. . - 

The Rev. J. Scott Porter, Professor o£ Sacred Criticism and 
Theology to the Association of Non-subscribing Presbyterians in 
Ireland, has given a good account of the facts of the case in his 
Principles of Textual Criticism (London, 1 848), pp. 494 - 5 1 2. It 
is hardly necessary to say that he regards the disputed text as a 
manifest interpolation. Professor Porter, however, is, a Unitarian. 
I mention this work particularly on account of the interesting in- 
formation which it gives respecting the readings of the passage in 
certain ancient Latin manuscripts in the British Museum. 

Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his Treatise on Biblical Criticism 
(1852), Vol. n. pp. 408-426, after a full discussion of the evi- 
dence on the subject) comes to the conclusion that the passage is 
"certainly spurious.** 

No English scholar of the present century has made so imp<M> 
tant contributions to the textual criticism of the New Testament, 
or has done so much to awaken a new interest in the subject, as 
Dr. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. He has devoted himself with 
unwearied zeal and diligence for more than twenty-five years to 
the collation of manuscripts and the collection of materials for a 
new edition of the Greek Testament, of which the first part only, 
containing the Grospeb, has yet been published. *His treatise on 
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, contained in Vol. 
IV. of Home's Introduction, tenth edition, and also published 
separately, is an original work of the highest authority and 

Digitized by'VjOOQlC 



TREGELLES. — TISCHENDORF. 201 

value/ Bleek, in his Introduction to the New Testament (Ber- 
lin, 1862), p. 84, strongly expresses the wish that it might be 
translated into German.* What, then, does. Dr. Tregelles say 
of onr passage ? 

** To enter into a fbrmal discussion of the genmneness of the 
testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7," he observes, 
*^ is really superfluous ; for it would only be doing over again what 
has been done so repeatedly that there cannot be two opinions in 
the iftinds of those who now know the evidence, and are capable 

of appreciating its force I only add, that if the words be 

considered genuine, then any addition of any kind, found in any 
manuscript (however recent), and supported by the later copies of 
any one version, in opposition to the more ancient, possesses as good 
a claim to be received and used as a portion of Holy Scripture." f 

The most distinguished of the recent critical editors of the 
Greek Testament is Constflntine Tischendorf, Professor of The- 
<Aogy in the University of Leipsic. Speaking of the text of the 
Three Heavenly Witnesses, he says : — 

*' That this spurious addition should continue to be published as 
a part <^ the Epistle, I regard as an impiety as well as an act of 
ignorance or rather of fraud. The relation of the passage to 
criticism is such, that we must exclude it without hesitation from 
the sacred volume, unless the entire art of criticism, with all its 
apparatus of ancient witnesses, is to be^egarded as worthless and 
. rejected. Such being the case, what temerity it is, what con- 
tempt of the truth delivered by the sacred writers, to insert those 
words into the text, through fear that by their removal the doc- 
trine of the divine Trinity may be endangered l" % 

* I m*ay mention incidentally, that Bleek, whose " History of the Text 
of the New Testament,** in the work referred to, may be regarded as 
the best vecent German treatise on the subject, emphatically rejects 1 
John V. 7 as spurious. — Sinleit. in d. N. T., p. 698. So Reuss, Geschichte 
der keiUgen 8chr\ften Neuen TettamenUf i. e. " History of the Sftcred 
Writings of the New Testament,** third edition (1860, fourth edition 
1864), \ 860. 

t Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 
.1864, 8vo, pp. 226, 227. 

X Novum TMtftnentum Triglottnm, 1854, Prolegom., p. ex. 
9* 



dbyGoOgk 



S02 APPENDIX. 

One of ih» best books illustratmg ike appiicadoa of ciitical 
principles to the text of tiie New Testament is the ^* Gonrae of 
Developed Criticisin on Passages of the New Testament materi- 
ally affected by Various Readings," published at London in 1B5^ 
by the Rey. Thomas Sheldon Qreen, late Fellow of ChiiBt's 
Ciollege, Cambridgoi the author of a ** Treadse on the Grammar 
of the New Testament," and, more recently, of a new translation 
of the Greek Testament aocompamed by a critical edition of tiie 
original text, entitled "^The Twofold New Testamenti" &e. In 
regard to 1 John y. 7, Mr. Ghreen observes :^- 

^ It is not too much to say tiiat, if a contie could be 8iq>posed to 
be debarred from aU documentary evidence on either side in the 
present case, except those few MSS. which exhibit tiie verse, and 
the only veraon that has it, namely, the common text of the Vul- 
gate, the circumstances which even thus would come under his 
notice, would form a sufficient ^pouild to its condemnation as a 
spurious aooi^tion."* 

In 1861 the Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener, of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, Rector ci St. Gerrans, CcHiiwall, published " A Haiii 
Introduction io the Criticism of the New Testament," containing ' 
much vsduable information, ike result of the author's personal 
investigations. Mr. Scrivener has also earned the gratitude of 
biblical students by his published collaticms of manuscripts, and 
his Yery eardul and seiM)larly editions of the Codex Augiensis 
and the Codex BezcB. In ^^esJaag of iSkb oontroveny on 1 John 
T. 7, after referring to Person, he adds t — 

**The Leden ef that prince of seholats, and the oontempo- 
raneous researches of Herbert Marsh, have o<Hi^letely decided 
the contest: Bishop Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837}, 
clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the laain field 
of battie had been lost beyond recovery. ^ 

^* On .the whole, therefore. We need not hesitate to declare ott 
conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John : 
that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from 
the mai^n, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox 
gloss on V. 8 : that from the Latin they crept into two or thpee 

• Course of Developed Crittcrstfi, pp. 188,* 184. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



ALFORD. — QREE& MANUSCRIPTS. 203 

ftite Gre^ codices, atnl theilce into the printod Gi^bek text, a 
fAace to ^^rhich the/ had no rightlkl claim." * 

Hie best critical edition o£ the Greek Testament with English 
notes is, I believe, nmversaUj admitted to be that of the Ber. 
H^sry Alford, D. D.^ Dean of Canterburj) the first volume of 
which wl» pnbyshed in 1849^ and has Idi'eadj passed through at 
least five editi(His. The voltun6 eontaining the Epistles of John 
(T^L lY. Part II. of the work) first aj^ared in 1861 ; 2d edit, 
1862. The &>llowing ^traot firom his note on the passage is su^ 
ficiently explicit : — 

'* The question of the genuineness ef ^ words read in the 
Beeeived Text at the end of verse 7^ has been discussed, as far 
as external grounds are concerned, in the digest | and it has beeti 
seen, tiiat unless pure caprice is to be fdlowed in the oritacistn of 
Ibe saored text, ^ere is nn^ the shadow of ft reason for supposing 
Aem genuine^ Even the supposed citattmn of ^em in early 
Latin Fathers have now, on closer examination, disappeared. 
Something remsuns to be saetd an interna} groimds, on which we 
have fyi r%ht to enter, now that the otiber is secured. And on 
these grounds it must appear, ot any Mr and tmprejudioed «oil- 
ndention^ that the words ai^ 1) alieii from the cont^t: 2) in 
Aemsdves incoherent, and betraying pother hand than the 
Apostle's^" This Alford pkxiceeds to show. 

Since the date of Mr< Orme's M^noir (1850) many Greek 
manuBcr^ts contuning the Eiitt Epistle of Mm have been 
brought to Hgfat, oi^ collated ^t the first time, by Schd£, Ttschen- 
ckxrf, Scrivener, and others. It may be le^, tiv^efore, to give 
here A brief summary of the present state o£ the ^vidtoce for and 
against the genuineness of the disputed text For details^ one may 
consult ihe recent mtical editions of Tischendorf and Alford. 

The number of Greek manuscripts, including lectionaries, 
wh»^ are known to omit the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, 
is more than ttoo himdred and twenty^flve^ and probably not less 
thafi tnoo hundred <md fifty. ^ Among these «t^ the Sinaitic and the 

* Plain iDtrod. to the Oritioism of the Kew Test, pp. 462, 468. 
t See the Rev. A. W. GraftOD's statement in Alford*s Greek Test., Vol 
lY. pp. 269, 270, 2d edit; Scrivener's Plain Introdnetloii, p. 460. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



204 APPENDIX. 

Yatioaii, of the fourtih centmy, and the Alexandrine, of the fifUi. 
The disputed words, on the other hand, are found in the text of 
but two Grreek manuscripts, one (No. 162) of the fifteenth or six- 
teenth century, the other (84) of the sixteenth, and neither of 
any critical importance. (See before, pp. 181, 195.) The varia- 
tions in the readings of these two manuscripts, the omission of the 
article, and their conformity to the Latin Yulgate in other places, 
make it in the highest degree probable that they derived the pas- 
sage by translation from that version. The disputed text is also 
found in the margin of two other Greek manuscripts (Nos. 69 and 
1 73) in writing not earlier than the sixteenth century. In this 
account I have not noticed the Codex Eavianus at Berlin, which 
has been proved to be a forgery ; or a Wolfenbuttel manuscript 
of the seventeenth century, the Codex Guelpherbytanus D, already 
referred to (see p. 194), both of which, as not possessii^ the 
slightest authority, are excluded by tibe critical editors from their 
lists. 

The disputed words are also wanting in all the ancient vermoas : 
namely, in tibe Peshito Syriac (Cent, ii.),' the Thebaic or Safaidic 
(ii./>r iii.), the Memphitic or Coptic (iii. or iv.), the iEkhiO[^c 
iv. or v.), the Armenian (v.), the Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac 
(made A. D. 608, revis^ 616), the several Arabic versions, and 
the Slavonic (ix.), though it has been foisted into some editions of 
the Peshito, the Armenian, and the Slavonic, in opposition to the 
authority of the manuscripts.* Nor do they properly belong 
either to the Old Latin (Cent. iL), or to the Vulgate (Cent iv.), 
though these versions have been claimed by the advocates of the 
passage. TheX>ld Latin has already been 8p(d:mi<^, in there- 
marks on Wiseman's theory (see befinre, p. 186). That the pas- 

* The history of its introduction into several printed editions of the 
Syriac is instructive. Tremellins, in his edition of the Peshito published 
in 1569, left a. blank space for it in the text, and placed his oum tran^Hon 
of it into Syriac in a note; 6ntbi6r (1664) inserted this translation in his 
text, and in his Notes (1667) remarks: — ** Since it ia well known that the 
Arians have in this place neither spared the Greek text itself, nor the 
Oriental versions, we have inserted this verse, which is wanting in other 
editions, from the Notes of Tremellius." After him, Schaaf inserted it in 
his edition (1709 and 1717). 



dbyGoOgk 



coNCLubma summabt. 30S 

0age k sbo an mtexpolaHoB in tibe Latin Tulgato k prorej 1^ tie 
.^ir, tbst^ fbcyi)^ contained in a large majwkj' of tlie aumnsoriptg 
of thai Tension, st if waiting in the Iw»<dde8t and beet, ihe Cotto 
jimia^imtf written about A, D. 641» and the Codex Ftddenm of 
about the same age, and in more tiian J^ otibers, many of them 
of high anti<|ait7*; bj its Tarioos readrngs and uncertain position 
in the manuscrlpta which do contain it, in many of the oider ones 
h being ibund only in the mangin, <x afterthe eighth Terse; and 
finally, by the total want of reference to it in the writings of yery 
many of the older Latin fiithers who had ooeadon to cite it, in- 
cluding Jerome, the authbr of the version. The first Ladn writer 
Irho has clearfy' cpoted it is YigiHnis Tapsensis^ who floorished 
near the end of the fifth century ; it is ^pioted by a ftir othw 
Latin writers preyioua to the ninth century, and by many after 
that date. The oldest manuscript of the Vulgate which eontaina 
it behmgfhpvobabiy to the ser^ith or eighth century.* 

This unanimous testimony of all tbm snowv Gbsbk hanu- 
flGBiFm ■WMTtTJm BJsvoxR TBB nnrsNTioir of printing, and 
of ALh TVB AN<HKNT YUtftKmft, is Strikingly confirmed by Hke 
albs^iee ef the passage from the Smptuie qoootations of all thb 
Gbbbk fathebs befors thr foubtbbnth cexttubt, though 
•er^ral of ti^m, as Ghregovy Nazianzen and Cyrfl of Alexandria, 
with great ingenuity extract prooft of the Trinity fi*am the Torses 
befinre aud after il. 

S^cn hemg the rtate of the ease^ iriiat must we think of those 
• who in thia wneteenth century quote the passage as a pnK^-text 
in sennona (Breached to the nnkamed, ot publish it in hookB de- 
cdgned fiir pc^mlar circulation, for Sunday Sehoola and Bible 
Classes, without a hint of its spuriousn^s ? What must we think 
e( those, who, noticing the £m^ that its gittuinenees has been 
disputed, denoonce thmr Mow-Christiana aa ailntrarily and 

« * IrdftrtothaLflC^nrasMimscript; 8Sebefove,p.l89; K is leraarkable, 
that b«tii thtemaniiscript, and tfajt o^rddittLafcin Hunaaoript which con- 
tains 1 Jolin y. 7, — the Speculum published by Mai, — support also the 
spmions I^oUa ef Paul to the Isio^icetaaM. So No. 11,899 (»th eent.) 
of the AMHtmuL MB& ia the British Museum. See WesteeM^s ait. od ^» 
Vulgate in Smith's Dictionary of tiie Bible, m. 1718, noteq. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



206 APPENDIX. 

wickedly rejecting it from repugnance to ihe doctrine it is sap- 
posed to teach ? What must we think of the managers of relig- 
ious Societies, who publish editions of the New Testament for 
family use, " with notes designed to give the results of critical in- 
vestigcUidny** * in which there is no note on a passage Hke this ? We 
may not assume to pass judgment on the character of ihe persons 
concerned, fhr our knowledge of their motives and circumstances 
is necessarily imperfect; but there would seem to be room for 
but one opinion among honest and intelligent men, when their 
attention is directed to the subject, in respect to the practices 
themselves. 

Again ; how long shall this notorious interpolation be circulated 
in the popular Versions of the Bible without mark of doubt, and 
be imposed upon the imleamed as a part of what they are taught 
to revere as "the word of God"? In regard to Luther's Grer- 
man version, in which it is well known to have been inserted long 
after his death in' defiance of his expressed wishes, it would seem 
that there could be no hesitation in striking it from the text. The 
question in regard to the common English version presents greater 
difficulty. But I will quote, for the benefit of those interested, 
two expressions of opinion on the matter. 

" Fear of the Church of Rome on the one hand," says a recent 
writer in the Edinburgh Review, "and of the Socinians on 
the other, appears to have induced the half-hearted authorities 
of the Church of England to retain this known interpolation in a 
version which was to be the sole appeal of the unlearned vulgar. 
And we cannot consider it creditable to our Church, that this 
spurious passage is annually read to the laity in the Epistle for 
the First Sunday after Easter, and in one of the lessons on 
Trinity Sunday."! 

The following is from an article on " The Ethics of Editorship," 
by a writer whose name will command universal respect : — 

" It is difficult to decide how far a received text ought to be^ 
altered upon the discovery of its incorrectness. And with regard 

* These words are fh)m the title-page of an edition of the New Testa- 
ment recently published by the American Tract Society, New York* 
t Edinburgh Review for July, 1866; GXXII. 113. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



WOOLSEY. 207 

to the text of the Scriptures this question becomes one of great 

delicacy^ and importance But what shall we say of a passage 

like 1 John y. 7, in which all competent judges concede that there 
is an interpolation, and which many persons omit when they read 
the context in public Do not truth and honesty require that such 
a passage should be struck out of our English Bibles, a passage 
which Luther would not express in his translation, and which did 
not creep into the Grerman Bible until nearly fifty years after his 
death ? Would the shock of its insertion in brackets, or of its 
disappearance from our version, do as much harm as the display 
of Christian honesty and of true reverence to the genuine word 
of God would do good ? We suggest that a number of biblical 
critics, of approved character for orthodoxy, should move in this 
matter, and demand at least a careful consideration of this text. 
We cannot but believe that the state of the case is so plain aa 
to admit of but one conclusion. And we cannot think that 
anything would prevent the change ftom being effected, but an 
unworthy timidity, which is neither Christian nor upright." ♦ 

• The Bev. Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., President of Tale College, in 
the New Englander for August, 1862 ; X. 884. 



dbyGoOgk 



KoTB TO Pags 185, Lone S7< 

fr baa ainoe been sIiowb, hy the reBearcbes of Dr. Cose, thtt 
1 Jobn ▼. 7 iras interpolated in Lotber^ Tendon as esoAj aa 1582, 
in an edition published at Erankfcnrt, in qnarta See the note on 
the passage in Huther^s Commentaiy (in German), 2d edit, 18S1, 
p. 211. Tanzer in Huthei^s note is a misprint fi>r Panzer. 



dbyGoogk 



INDEX. 



^THiopio verskmy 8, 57, 114, 204. 
African fathers on 1 John v. 7, 106- 

108,187-189. 
Alexandrine nuMiucryat, 16. 118, 204. 
Alford, Henry, 197; quoted, 208. 
Alogi, 184, ly. 
Ambrose, Saint^ 17, 19. 
Amelotte, Father Denis, 41. 
American Bible Union, 198. 
American Tract Society's edition of 

the New Testament, 206 n. 
Antioch, Second Council of (4th 

cent.), 151, 164-166, 167. 
ApostohSj 52. 
Axjuinas, Thomas, Saint, See Thomas 

Aqtdnai. 
Arabic versions^ 8, 67, 204. 
Arians, 14, 17, 18, 84, 69, 60, 196^ 196. 
Arins, 62. 

Armenian version, 116 - 117 ; 8, 62, 
. 67, 118, 176, 204. 
Article, the Greek, before & in 

1 John V. 8, 97, 188, 184. 
Ash, Edward, 198. 
Athanasius, 189, 190. 
Athanasius, Pseudo-, 62, 176, 177. 
Athanasius the younger, 146. 
Augusti, J. C. W., 198. 
Augustine or Austin, Saint, 96, 121, 

122; 4, 6, 46, 89, 186, 186, 197 a. 

Specubim ascribed to him, 187, 188. 

Barlow. Thomas, Bp., 147. 

Barnes, Albert, 198. 

Basil the Great, 87, 146. 

Baurogarten-Grusius, L. F. 0., 198. 

Beatus, 88, 89. 

Beda, or Bede, 4, 89. 

Ben David, pseudon. jSfee Jones, John, 

D.D. 
Bengel (LaL Bengelius), J. A., 84 - 

86, 76, 97, 148, 146. 
Benson, George, quoted, 4^-47; 

61. 
Bentley, Richard, ^7-81; 22, 26, 

.148, 147, 169. 



Berlin manMcript. See Codex Ravi- 



Besser, W. F., 198. 

Beza, or de Beze, Theodore, 8, 40, 41, 

42.48,60,67,69. 
Black, itev. John, author of PalaorO' 

maica, quoted, 124-180; 144. 
Bleek. Fnedrich, 201, and note, 
Blomfield, C. J., Bp. of London, 196. 
Bloomfield, S. T., 196; quoted, 197.- 
Boothroyd, Benjamin, 198. 
BossuetT J. B., Bp., quoted, 98, 94. 
Boston Jieview, 196, 196. 
Bowyer, William, 47, 51. 
British Critic, 127; quoted, 186. 
Bryennius, Josephus, 122. 
Buckminster, J. S., 188, 184. 
Bugenhagen, Johann, 186. 
Bull, George, Bp., 168, 169, 161. 
Bullinger, Heinrich, 14, 186. 
Bunsen, G. G. J., aaron von, 198. 
Burgess, Thomas, Bp., 180-147, 161 

- 162, 169, 170, 186, 198; 112,a27, 

167, 185, 202. 
Burnet, Gilbert, Bp., 18 - 16, 190. 
Burton, Edward, quoted, 197 n. 
Butler, Gharles, quoted, 90-96; 66 

n., 188, 184. 

Galamy, Edmund, quoted, 28, 24. 

Gjilecas, Manuel, 122. 

Galvin, Jean, 9. 

Carthage, Council of, under Huneric. 

106, 107; 48, 62, 77, 94, 96, 146, 

188, 184, 187. 
Casley, David, 84. 
Gassiodorus. or Gassiodorius, 62, 88, 

89, 189, 146, 167. 
Gastalio, or Gastellio, Sebastian, 9. 
Christian Observer (Joseph Jowett), 

quoted, 84-90. 
Clarke, Adam, quoted, 78-84; 182, 

147 198. 
Clarke, Samuel, D.D., 21. 
Clemens Akxandrinus, 87, 188, 189, 

146. 



dbyGoOgk 



210 



qDEX. 



Cochlflens, Johannes, 177. 

Codex AmUahm, 205. 

Cbdez Fuldentis, 206. 

Codex Gnelpherbyl^inui (Wol&nb^i- 

tel) D, 194, 204; 167, 17). 
Codex Guelpherbytanui XVL 7, (No. 

69,) 194, 204; 167,172. 
Codex »Y of Stephens J or Codex VaiabU, 

identified by Marsh with MS. Kk. 

6. 4. in the Libnuy of the Unirer- 

«ity of Cambridge, 68-78. 
Codex Montforikutmi, alias Briiamd- 

ctM, or Z>ii6fii»eii«M, (No. 84,) 8, 128, 

124, 196; 6, 84, 67. 6», 78, 128, 

182, 147, 167, 182, 204. 
Codex OUobomamg !498, in the Vati- 
can Library, (No. 162,) 181, 182, 

198 204 
Codes! Bwiaimy at Beilin,69, 174, 204. 
Cohnsns, Simon, 7. 
Compiutefman edUion of the New Tes- 

tament, 2, 8, 26-27, 84, 86, 42, 48, 

60,57,80-84,129,180. 
Con^beare, W. D., 196 n, 
Coptic or MeayohUk vemon, 8, 67, 118, 

176, 204. 
Criio OBMtabriffiennt^ psendon. See 

Tnrton, Thomas. 
Cyprian, 186-188, 188; 17, 18, 46, 

62. 88, 89, 94, 107, 181, 146, 146, 

187, 189, 198. 
Cyril ^ Alexandria, 4, 87, 118, U4, 

U6, 189, 190, 206. 

Datiosov, Samuel, quoted, 200. 

De Missy, See Missy. 

Devil's agency in corrupting the text 

of Scripture, 58, 59. 
Dialogue between Arim ondA^hana- 

stttf, 52. 
Didymus, 87. 

Diocletian's persecution, 107. 
Diodoms ofAntioeh, 144, 146, 146. 
DionjTsius of Alexandria, 145, 146. 
Dorbont, Ambro'sius, 146. 
Dublin mamucripL See Codem Mont- 

fortia/nue, 
Diisterdieck, F. (A. C), 198. 

Ebbard, J. H. A., 198. 

Eclectic Review (J. P. Smith), quoted, 

98-100; 180. 
£cUnburgh Meview, quoted, 206. 
Elzevir {properly Bisevier) editon, 8. 
Kmlyn, Thomas, 20-28. i 

England, Qh^rch of, 206. | 



Eplphanitts. 87. 

Erasmus, Desiderins, quoted, 2-6: 

14,48,50,68,69,128,180. 
Emesti, J. A., 182. 
Etherius, 88, 88. 
Ethiopic vertion. See JEQdopio 
Eucherius, 45, 52, 89, 107, 146. 
Euj^enius, Carthaginensis, 106, 107. 

See alto Carthage. Council of. 
Eusebius CoBtariensu, 106, 108, 109, 

196 196. » I 1 » 

Euseb'ius VereeUentii^ 110, 111. 
Euthymius Zigabenns, 161, 152, 167. 
Evanson, W. A., 171, 178-180. 
Ewald, (6.) H. (A.), 198. 

Facundus, 46, 77, 89, 186, 187, 188. 
Farley, F. A., 198. 
Fraud, pious, 47, 48. 
French versions, Old, 109 - 111. 
Fulgentius, 46, 52« 88, 89, 94, 107, 
18T, 146, 167, 177, 187. 

Gadolus, BemardinuB, quoted, 141, 
142. ^ —* 

Gibbon, Edward, quoted, 47 - 4a. 

Glosea Ordinaria, 140-142, 168. 

Grafton, A. W., 208 fir 

Grashof J. W., 198. 

Gratz, Aloys, 197. 

Greelc Church, iti Oonfemon qf 

Faiih,b%, 
Greek tathers ignorant of 1 John y. 

7, 87, 146, 206. 
Greek manuscripts ob 1 John y. 7, 

9 - 11, 118 - 120, 174, 189, 190, 198, 

194, 195, 196, 197 n., 208, 204. 
Greek Tettament, critical editions of 

the, 7, 8, 197. 
Green, T. S., 197; quoted, 202. 
Gregory Kagianzen, 87, 154, 189, 190, 

205. 
Griesbach, J, J., quoted, 100, li^l: 

61,105,181-188,194,197. 
Gutbier, .Sgidius, 46, 204 a. 

Hahn, (H.) A., 197. 

Hales, WiUUm, quoted, 117-120, 195. ^ 

Hammond, Hennr, 17 - 19, 147, 168 

Harford, J. S., lAfe ofBp. Bur^eu, 198 . 

Hewlett^ John, 198. 

Holtzmann, H. (J.), 198. 

Home, T. H., quoted, 180-182; 199. 

2Q0. 
Horsley, Samuel, Bp,, 182, 168. 
gowe, John^ 17. * 



dbyGoOgk 



INDEX. 



211 



EoiwrlMip Hiiiiii«ri«^ Coanoa of Af> 
rkMuiJlliliosB «nmmoi * 
Carthage, OottiioU oL 



) «iimmoiiad bjr* 8u 



Haiit, W. W., 192, 
Huther, J. E., 198, 208. 
Hujshe, Francis, quoted, 162 
169, 191. 



W; 



Italic vernon. See iMtiHifenkm^ Old, 

Jachmans, K. ISL, 198. 

Jaspia, G. sL, 198. 

Jerome {Lot, HieronTmns), 69, 806; 
PrefBCB to ike tkMIU J^HgUe$ 
falsely asoribed to him, 4, 6, 7, 11, 
14 - 16, 17, 19, 47, 6a, 111, 1«4, U6, 
146, 176, 189, 190. 

Joachim, the JJbdot, 89 n. 

1 John ▼. 7, how intrednced into the 
Latin version, 18, 46-47, 76, 77, 
69, 121, 122, 202, 208. Stimmary 
of the erideoce against it, by Per- 
son, 60; the Eclectic Review, 98, 
29; Oxlee, 178-177; oouoliiding 
summary, 208 - 205. 

Jones, J(te, D. iX, {Ben DaritL) 150, 
151, 153, 154. 

Jbrtin, John, his U^ qf Eramm 
quoted, 8-7. He rejeoti 1 John v. 

Jowett, Josqih, qvoled, 84-90* 
Juda, Leo de, 9. 
Jnstfai Martyr, 67. 

Katb, John, i^ quoted, 186. 
Kenriok, F. P., JU^, quoted, 196. 
Kettner, F. E., 16, 17. 
Knapp, Gr. C, 197. 
KnitteJ, F. A., 75, 170-172, 178-180, 
194. 

La Cava mamucr^f 189, 205 n, 

liichmann, Karl, 197. 

Laodiceam, ^^mOe of Paul Is Ike, 

20b n. 
Latin fitthers on 1 John v. 7, 87 - 89, 

106-108,187-189,265. 
Latin manuscripts on 1 John v. 7, 8, 

11-15. 78. 79, 95, 190, 192, 200, 

205. >8ee Olio La Cava manueeript, 

S^^eculum. * 

LoUh verwHij Old, or JtaHe, 95, 181, 

186-169,204. 
Lttdn VtdgaU version, 8, 11, 12, 14- 

16,62, 57, 68, 75-81, 88, 84, 95, 

167, 189, 190, 200, 204, 205. 



Lee, Edw«^, Mp., 2. 

Lee, Samuel, 199. 

Le Long, Jacques, 62, 68. 

Liber tuvereue VdrUnadmny 177. See 

alto Vieilius Tapsensis. 
Lincoln College, Rector of. See Ta- 

tham, Edward. 
Lind^ey, Theophilus, (Sonpater,) 60, 

61. 
Louvain divines, 57. 
Lowth, Robert, Bp., quoted, 184. 
Liicke, (G. C.) F., quoted, 198. 
Lather, Martin, 8, 165, 186, 206, 207, 

208 «. 

Mace, William, 82, 88. 

McLeod, Alexander, 184.* 

Mai, Cardinal Angelo, 187, 189; 

quoted, 191. 
Marcus Ce^e^enm. 52, 107, 187, 186. 
Marsh, Herbert, Bp,^ quoted, 63 - 78, 

.121-124, 181; '202. 
Martin, David, 20 - 23, 41, 147. 
Matthsi, C. F. von, quoted, 142, 148; 

197. 
Maxiipus ihe Confestor, 108, 146. 
Mayer, G. K., 198. 
Meyer, H. A. W., 198. 
Michaells, J. D., quoted, 74-78, 128; 

66 n. 
Middleton, Conyers, 30, 81. 
Middleton, T. F., Bp., quoted, 96- 

98; 184. 
Mill, John, 19, 20, 143. 
Missy, C^sar de, 41. 
Monk, J. H., Bp,, quoted, 81 n, 
MonOdy Anthotogy (J. S. Buckmin- 

ster), 188, 184. 

Neander, (J.) A. ( W.). 198. 
Neapolitan manmcr^t, (No. 178,) 193, 

204. 
Newton, iSftr Isaac, quoted, 42-44, 51. 
Nolan, Frederick, quoted, 101 - 111; 

188, 147, 195, 196. 
North BriUth Benew, quoted, 190. 

(EcoLAHPABtus, Johannes^ 1&5. 

Oxlee, John, quoted, 17 -IS^ 111- 
117, 147 - 149, 167 - 169; ISl. His 
summary of the evidence it^iiiAt 
1 John V. 7, 178-178. 

P., Bev, T.. 0/ C 1, 87, a». 

PaHaoTomatca, iSfee Black, ^i;i.'. Jolm. 
PanopUtt, 188, 184. 



dbyGoOgk 



212 



INDEX. 



Paulns, H. E. G., 198. 

Pearson, John. Bp,, 158, 169. 

Penn, Granville, 198. 

PetkUo Syriac vertum, 8, 46, 47, 67, 
174, 204. 

Petms Gomestor, MagisUr in Sitto- 
*r»«, 141. 

PfaflF, C. M., 148. 

Phffibadius, or Phoebadius, 52, 107. 

Philoxenian or Hardean Syruic ver- 
«um, 8, 114, 175, 204. 

Porsdn, Richard, quoted, 86, 66-60, 
152; 29, 49, 51, 129, 186, 187, 189, 
140, 151, 154, 202. Vindicated by 
CrUo OaniabrigiensUy 166 - 162. . 

Porter, J. Scott, 200. 

Possidius, 187, 188. 

Quarterly Review (Thomas Tur- 
ton), quoted, 60, 186-144, 158- 
156. 

BECEStVED Text of the New Testa- 
ment, defended by Nolan, 101- 
108. 

Reuss, Eduard, 201. 

Bickli, Karl, 185, 198. 

Rinck, W. P., 190 fi. 

Rocca, Angelo, 189. 

Roger, ihe Athi Louis, 20. 

RosenmuUer, J. G., 198. 

Sabatier, or Sabbathier, Pierre, 96, 

148. 
Sahidus or Thebaic oemon, 8, 175, 

204. 
Sander, J. E. F., 198. 
Sardis, Epistle of the Bishops at^ 87. 
Schaaf, Oarolus, 46, 204 n. 
Schmid, C. F., 148. 
Scholz, J. M. A., 181, 182, 192, 198, 

197. 
Schott, H. A., 197. 
Scott, Thomas, 199. 
Scrivener, F. H., quoted, 158 fi., 202. 
Sebastian!, Don Leopoldo, 190. 
Seller, G. F., 198. 
Selden, John, 148, 158, 169. 
Semler, J. S., 66 n., 74. 
Simon, Father Richard, quoted, 9 - 

18; 16,20,21. 
Sinaitic manuscry^tj 208, 204. 
Slatxmic version^ 8, 67, 176, 204. 
Sloss, James, 86. 
Smalbroke, Richard, Bp., quoted, 

25-27; 147. 



Smith, John Pye, quoted, 82, 88, 199. 

See also Edectlc Review. 
Smith, Thomas, 16. 
Socinians, Pors6n*8 opinion of the, 66, 

57. 
SosipateTf psei^don. See Ltndsey, 

Tneophilus. 
Speculum, the, edited by Mai, 187 - 

189, 192, 205 n. 
Steph^is {properly Estienne), Rob- 
ert, 88-41, 61-78, 84-86, 168- 

166, 191; 8, 20, 84, 35, 48, 50, 61, 

57, 129, 178. 
Stillingfleet, Edward, Bp,, 168, 169. 
Stdz, J. J., 198. 
Strabo, Walafrid, 184, 186, 140 - 142, 

158. 
Stresow. K. F., 76. 
Stuart, Moses, quoted, 199. 
Stunica {Span. Zuiiiga), J. L., 2. 42. 
Symbolutn AnUochenum, See Anti- 

och. Second Gouncil of. 
Syriac versions, 8. See also Peshito, 

Philoxenian. 

Tathah, Edward, Bector oflAncoin 

CoUege, 152, 158. 
TertuUlan, 17, 18, 46, 62, 107, 187, 

188, 145, 187, 188. 
TheUe, C. G. W., 197. 
Theophihu, Books to, falsely ascribed 

to ^thanasius, 176, 177. See also 

Vigilius Tapsensis. 
Thomas Aquinas, Saini, 80. 
Thomson, Charles. 198. 
Tiwhendorf, (L. F.) C.,197; quoted, 

201. 
Tittmann, J. A. H., 197. 
Travis, George, quoted, 49 - 55, 68 - ■ 

78; 75, 140,141. 
Tregeiles, S. P., quoted, 188, 194, 195, 

200, 201. 
Tremellius, Immanuel, 46, 204 ». 
Trent, CouncU of, 91-98, 191, 198. 
Tumbull, Joseph, 194, 195. 
Turton, Thomas, Bp., { Orito Cania- 

brigiensis and Clemens AngUcanus,) 

quoted, 29-81, 85, 86, 54, 55, 157 - 

169, 180; 188 «. See also Quarterly 

Review. 
Twells, Leonard, 88, 86. 

Ubcan, 115, 116, 175. 

Valla's Greek MSS., 51, 67. 
Vater, J. S., 197. 



dbyGoOgk 



INDEX. 



213 



VaUean mantucript (No. 1209), 6, 16, 

16,25-27,41,204. 
Venice mamtscripty 14, 1&, 180, 190. 
Versions, ancient, 8, 195, 196, 204, 

206. ^ 
VersionJf modem, 8, 9, 185, 186. 
Victor Viienns, 13, 107, 187. 
Vigilius Taptenm, 62, 89, 96, 100, 

182, 187, 189, 205. 
Vincent, William, 81 ». 
Vnlgate vertUm, See LaUn Vulgate. 

Wagner, J. E., 74, 76. 
Walafrid Strabo. ^ee Strabo. 
Waldenses, 109-111. 
WaUis, John, 168, 169. 
W^rdlaw, Ralph, 199. 
Ware, Henry, Jr,^ 184. 
Waterland, Daniel, 22, 168, 169. 



Westcott, B. F., 206 «. 

Wetstein, J. J., 88 -41, 180; 148, 191. 

Wette, W. M. L. de, 198. 

Whiston, William, 21, 29, 80, 74. 

Whitby, Daniel, 147. 

Wilson, John, 198, 194. 

Wiseman, QurdiwU Nicholas, 186- 

191. 
Wol/enbrntdMS. See Oodex Guei>h- 

erbiftanui. 
Woolsey, Theodore, Pres, of TtOe 

CoUege, aaoted,'206, 207. 
Wordswortin, Christopher, 197, and 

note. 
Wright, William, quoted, 189, 190, 

191, 192. 

ZuNiOA, D. L. See Stnnica. 
ZwingU, Uoldreich or Uhich, 186. 



THE END.- 



dbyGoogk 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



d by Google . 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



flloTMbOSfibS 




b89094a05862a 



I 



\ 

\ 



dbyGoogk 



t 







■J